RE: add node , oracle software a bit error

  • From: "Randy Johnson" <randyjo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:36:00 -0500

All excellent points Alex. 

Regarding the Pros; and this is not meant to be antagonistic. 

        "You are guaranteed to have the same patches on both nodes and use
actually the same binaries"

        This runs exctly counterpoint to a rolling upgrade/patch. 11g is
promissing to 
      improve the rolling upgrade process and seems to be heading that
direction. 


        "It's supposedly easier to manage"

        When would we ever install an HA system with ease of use overriding
the HA characteristics of the architecture. 


   -Randy 
 
Randy Johnson
Sr. Technical Consultant
Enkitec, LLP

Office ..... 817-255-3580
Mobile .... 817-564-6583
Email ..... randy.johnson@xxxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: gorbyx@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:gorbyx@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Gorbachev
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:40 PM
To: Dan Norris
Cc: randyjo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: add node , oracle software a bit error

I will list some pros and cons - if anyone feels like adding some more
- by all means, please do.

With shared Oracle home
- You are guaranteed to have the same patches on both nodes and use actually
the same binaries.
- It's supposedly easier to manage (was a disaster in 9i though) especially
on large RAC installations (by number of nodes).

I'm a bit skeptical as it requires some CFS or NFS to manage and it's yet
another software stack if you are not using it as your primary database
storage as well.

My arguments for non-shared homes:
- local filesystem is way simpler and rock solid.
- if you screwed up something on one node - it is not propagated on another
node (have you had someone wiping out the oracle homes completely? One SA
sis that clean up for me once).
- it's easier to apply rolling patches. Otherwise, for shared home it would
require new home installation and re-register databases and instances. In
the end, I'm actually not sure if that will be "online"
in the end.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,
Alex

On 7/10/07, Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'm in the same boat--"it depends", but I have very rarely heard 
> compelling arguments for using a shared OH. I just talked with another 
> customer this morning that is very much looking forward to their 
> 9i->10g RAC upgrade/migration so that they can eliminate the shared OH 
> from their environment.
>
> Dan
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Alex Gorbachev <ag@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: randyjo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 1:51:57 PM
> Subject: Re: add node , oracle software a bit error
>
>
> Well, there are two groups - some believe that shared oracle homes are 
> better from manageability and reliability and others prefer non-shared 
> installations.
>
> Both have their arguments and there is a third group that would say 
> "it depends". I probably belong to the third group but lean more 
> towards non-shared homes as a more reliable option.
>
> On 7/10/07, Randy Johnson <randyjo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Good tip on the shared filesystem for the oraInventory. Sharing the 
> > oraInventory across nodes is not a good practice in my opinion. It 
> > runs counter to the whole concept of redundancy in an HA 
> > configuration and RAC was not written to support it.



--
Alex Gorbachev, Oracle DBA Brewer, The Pythian Group
http://www.pythian.com/blogs/author/alex http://www.oracloid.com BAAG party
- www.BattleAgainstAnyGuess.com

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: 7/9/2007
5:22 PM
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/893 - Release Date: 7/9/2007
5:22 PM
 

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

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. oracle-l
  3. Archive
  4. 07-2007