Re: compelling arguments for a ThirdParty Cluster
- From: "LS Cheng" <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:46:36 +0100
simple words
if Oracle Clusterware fencing is not reliable we would have seen already
data corruptions issues
plus, RAC internally has algorithm to avoid data corruptions when cache
fusion communications suffers problems
interconnect is not SPOF if you protect it with bonding or teaming
I am not sure what is your point about LUNs but I have been in many sites
and asking for 5 1GB LUNs does not seem problem at all
Thanks
--
LSC
On Jan 17, 2008 3:14 PM, hrishy <hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am looking it from a prespective off SLA's
> for ex the document mentions
>
> a)Establishing dependencies between clusterware
> storage and RAC databases to ensure that the shutdown
> in the correct sequence.The sun clusterware allows the
> oracle clusterware to be stopped before the
> filesystems are stopped.
>
> b)It also suggests that there is a scope for oracle
> clusterware to evict a node and yet not reboot it
> immedaitely .The remaning nodes start recovering the
> transactions however the evicted continues to write to
> the datafiles during the period of eviction to the
> point where it falls down to the boot prompt it will
> lead to corruption
>
> There are some other points
> Like
> a)interconnect connect being single point of failure
> b)How to provision voting disks and OCR should i ask
> the storage admins to carve out 5 1GB LUNS so i can
> mirror them ?
> c)Would the storage admin object if i ask 5 1GB luns
> to be carved out for me as mostly they allocate LUNS
> of 64 GB 100Gb etc
>
> regards
> Hrishy
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
Other related posts:
