Re: Symantec Storage Foundation for Oracle RAC

  • From: ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: tim@xxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 03:32:41 +0000

Tim-

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, and don't really see why you 
wouldn't come right out and say it, but anyway..

So, the particular solution that I'm looking at employs a Global Clustering 
Option.  So, whatever happens at the primary site to cause a failure 
(earthquake, wild fire, etc..) that the company deems as an outage, would kick 
off the remote site to come online as the primary database.

Ken

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx> 
Would an earthquake level just part of a data center?  Do wildfires only burn 
the 3rd server in a rack and not the 4th, sparing the storage in the next 
cabinet over?

In what way does RAC (or any clustering solution, such as SFOR) protect against 
such threats?




ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
Tim, 

As Finn mentioned, I'm looking at this to provide HA.  This is for a location 
in SoCal, so its prone to earthquakes, and most recently, wild fires.

Ken

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Finn Jorgensen" <finn.oracledba@xxxxxxxxx> 

Tim,

RAC/SFOR/HACMP/VCS etc are for high availability. Not disaster recovery. As 
such, it's for the type of "disasters" that involve losing 1 server. Anything 
else you would need a DR setup to handle.

Finn

 
On 10/29/07, Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
Well......out of all the possible (and probable) range of faults and failures, 
exactly what types of "disasters" does clustering such as RAC or SFOR protect 
against?


ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
>It has to be a very selective disaster for clustering (i.e. RAC, HACMP, etc) 
>to provide much protection.
 
Tim-

Sorry, I don't understand what that means.

Ken

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Tim Gorman <tim@xxxxxxxxx> 
It has to be a very selective disaster for clustering (i.e. RAC, HACMP, etc) to 
provide much protection.


ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: 
Dan, thanks for the feedback.

We're trying to protect more than just the Oracle DB.  While CRS and Dataguard 
work well to provide HA, it doesn't take into account the Siebel, IIS, etc 
installs that form the entire application stack.

With this solution, we're hoping to lower the TCO in the event of a disaster.

Ken

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

I have used the SFOR previously, but not on the current versions and not with 
10g DB. I had no problems with the SFOR software.

If I were implementing a cluster today with 10g, I wouldn't use any non-Oracle 
clusterware. Instead, I'd just use Oracle Clusterware as it provides all the HA 
you'll need for the DB. Maybe you have other reasons for using SFOR...I hope 
you do because I couldn't justify the investment given the current 
architecture. 

Others have posted similarly on this list and in OTN forums as well. 

Dan


----- Original Message ----
From: Ken Nguyen <ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:46:05 AM 
Subject: Symantec Storage Foundation for Oracle RAC


We¢re looking to implement Symantec Storage Foundation HA for Oracle RAC to 
offer HA for our Oracle 10g RAC on RHEL.

Oracle has fully certified most of the components within this Symantec 
solution, except for the automatic failover piece (GCO). 
This component is certified on all platforms except for Red Hat, could have 
something to do with Oracle¢s OEL initiative.

Is anyone using this or any other Symantec SF products without any issues?

Ken
-- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l 


-- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l 

Other related posts: