And you know, I have read that also now that you mention it. But, I have seen a crossover cable used. But, in those cases as I recall they also had at least two physical interfaces for the public and two for the private. On Jan 11, 2008 9:35 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ahem, "a lot" better be zero as I'm quite certain that Oracle specifically > does not support the use of crossover cables in any cluster configuration. I > remember because I learned that the hard way (and returned fire with "how > about you document that a wee little bit please"). Anyway, I think the > answer to Michael's question is yes, they should be physically separate. > Even if it will work, it will be "suboptimal" as pointed out by Matt > earlier. > > If it's critical, don't do it. If it's dev, you'll probably survive > (except for the fact that your dev and production systems will not have this > in common and therefore may have slightly different behavior). > > Dan > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx> > To: ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Matthew Zito <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:48:51 AM > Subject: Re: rac network question > > I'm not even sure it will work. The private network is supposed to be for > node-node communication. A lot of two node racs use a crossover cable for > that connection, just to make sure nothing else will interfere. If this is > truly a high visibility, mission critical database, this is simply a poor > design. > > On Jan 11, 2008 8:46 AM, Michael McMullen <ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I agree it will work, but isn't the private and public supposed to be > > physically separate, not logically? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > *From:* Matthew Zito [mailto:mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx] > > *Sent:* January 10, 2008 5:08 PM > > *To:* ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > *Subject:* RE: rac network question > > > > > > > > Actually, just so's we're all clear, with the VLAN support that the > > gentleman described originally, the interfaces will appear separate – > > eth0.1 and eth0.2 (note: different than eth0:1 and eth0:2). The traffic > > will be shared, but as long as the bonding works as it should, it just means > > that if a card is lost, both the interconnect and the VIP will fail over to > > the other link. IMHO, while this is suboptimal, it should work fine. > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > -- > Andrew W. Kerber > > 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.' > > -- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'