RE: Active/Passive "high availability"
- From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Jared Still" <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 12:29:29 -0700
Summarizing all the below comments as (SAN = SPOF != HA), I would argue
that it depends on how you define "high availability". The term is
inherently subjective. Even if you are down 10 days a year, that is
still relatively "high availability" compared to being down 20 days per
year. Certainly a fully redundant SAN with a competent admin is going
to be more highlier (obscure South Park reference :-) available than a
single spindle with no redundant components. A careless, but efficient,
tech can bring down multiple SANs for quite a long time :-)
________________________________
From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@xxxxxxxxx]
Last time I looked, a mirrored disk resides in some type of disk farm.
SAN, NFS, whatever, it is a SPOF.
SAN failures are not exacly unheard of.
No, it doesn't require multiple failures. I am not a storage expert,
but having redundant components in a SAN does not make it HA.
It makes it more resistant to failiure, but it cannot be relied on
to guarantee a high percentage of availability.
I have also seen SAN's fail more than once.
1 SAN = SPOF
It isn't really necessary to have a physical disaster.
A careless tech can bring down your SAN for quite a long time.
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or
attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not
consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and
other information in this message that do not relate to the official business
of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
Other related posts:
