Re: rac network question
- From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx, ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx, oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:28:43 -0800 (PST)
I didn't know that was possible--there's the one thing I learned today! Do you
know if the Oracle installer will recognize those interfaces as separate during
clusterware installation? If not, that might shut this whole thing down.
However, if the installer gets along with this configuration, then I'd agree
that while not optimal, it should work. Still not sure if it's technically
"supported" or not, but not sure it's worth worrying about (interpret that as
you wish :).
Dan
----- Original Message ----
From: Matthew Zito <mzito@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:07:31 PM
Subject: RE: rac network question
<!--
_filtered {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
_filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}
span.emailstyle17
{font-family:Arial;color:windowtext;}
span.emailstyle18
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
span.EmailStyle19
{font-family:Arial;color:navy;}
_filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{}
-->
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
From:
oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Michael McMullen
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008
12:01 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: rac network question
That’s what
he’s done, combined the both so public & private traffic is combined.
I’m assuming it’s not supported and as such as this will be a very
high profile, critical database, he’ll have to change.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Norris [mailto:
dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ]
Sent: January 10, 2008 11:06 AM
To: ganstadba@xxxxxxxxxxx;
oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: rac network question
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.
Other related posts:
