Re: rac network question

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.'

Other related posts: