Re: Symantec Storage Foundation for Oracle RAC
- From: BN <bnsarma@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Jay.Caviness@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:17:33 -0400
On 10/30/07, Caviness, Jay A <Jay.Caviness@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> It depends on the definition of "disaster proof" and how much money a
> company is willing to spend on infrastructure. For local recovery, up to
> about 50km realistically, RAC can be used in what are known as stretch
> clusters, but that requires very high bandwidth for both storage and the
> interconnect. I have worked with clients that separate nodes in their
> clusters by blocks to remove them from the same building or place them on
> opposite ends of a campus. That protects them from more localized events
> such as a building fire. For major events, a standby solution would be best
> either employing Oracle's logical or physical standby (less of a bandwidth
> issue, but still some to ship archive logs) or whatever the modern versions
> or the old EMC SRDF solutions for san replication, which is quite
> expensive.
>
> Most anything can be automated, but that depends on the system.
>
> It really comes down to how much playing the odds is worth compared to
> normal data availability.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jay
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ken_nguyen@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 29, 2007 9:33 PM
> *To:* tim@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* Tim Gorman; finn.oracledba@xxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: Symantec Storage Foundation for Oracle RAC
>
>
> 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><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> <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> <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> <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
>
>
Greetings,
If you have a standard of not allowing Middle tier (application) to run on
the Same Server as Database, RAC with Oracle Clustering S/W is a good
choice. (If you have complex requirements for your App for HA).
You can avoid one Veritas License on the DB Box and can keep it on the
Other tiers.
Last I heard was that Orace Clustering S/W is needed even if you use other
vender Clustering S/W, not sure how true it was, If its TRUE, then having
two clustering S/Ws on the same box to do the same stuff,
Does this sounds like ponting fingers at different venders.
Regards & Thanks
BN
--
Regards & Thanks
BN
Other related posts:
