Re: rac network question
- From: "Andrew Kerber" <andrew.kerber@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:21:46 -0600
Dan beat me to it. RAC is supposed to have separate public and private
interfaces.
On Jan 10, 2008 10:05 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I see a huge problem and very likely a support issue as well. Basically
> what he's saying is that the host will have a *single* logical network
> interface. That *single* interface will need to serve as the private and
> public interface and that's where Oracle Support may have some major
> problems.
>
> If these blades only support 2 NICs (and you have no opportunities to
> expand them), then I'd elect to leave the redundancy aside and take a NIC
> failure as a whole node failure. Since the only other choice is to combine
> public and private networks over a single logical interface, removing
> redundancy so you have 2 separate logical/physical interfaces would be a
> favorable choice.
>
> Dan
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McMullen <ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:27:11 AM
> Subject: rac network question
>
> Our SA's are just setting up some HP blades for us for a rac and he sent
> me this below. Just wondering if anyone on the list sees a problem.
>
>
>
> "Also, since the c class blades have only 2 physical nics, we are going to
> trunk multiple vlans through the same bonded interface. Makes for a
> slightly weird setup; you may want to check it out and play with it before
> this goes live."
>
>
--
Andrew W. Kerber
'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'
Other related posts:
