Re: High Availability Options
- From: "Stefano" <s.cislaghi@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: jhthomp@xxxxxxxxx,"Zhu Chao" <zhuchao@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 10:27:37 +0000
Hi
I agree that today Solaris plus Veritas is really more expensive than Linux
plus clusterware, but:
- reboot time taken by a middle range linux server can be quite long (15mins
usually or more)
- clusterware is not bug aware and also 11gR2 has many problems not discovered
yet
- ACFS is quite new and needs more time to test and, IMHO, is not always a good
thing despiting a more standard and tradition NFS
- storage related replication to avoid use of dataguard may also open many
problems and block level replication does not avoid few issues such as
replication of corrupted blocks, replication of missing files, etc
Summarizing: i believe that linux+crs is a good environment but I'll not move
today to the latest oracle releases if possible because where I've already done
this I've discovered quickly many published and unpublished bugs that even if
almost every time I've found a workaround
My 2 cents
Stefano
--
http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu
Sent by BlackBerry® Bold 9700
-----Original Message-----
From: John Thompson <jhthomp@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:09:45
To: Zhu Chao<zhuchao@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: jhthomp@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: mdinh@xxxxxxxxx<mdinh@xxxxxxxxx>;
Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: High Availability Options
Before we moved tho this architecture, we were running on Solaris with
Veritas VCFS. We had many problems with this enviornment including VCS
caused kernel panics. Even when it worked, it was very inefficient.
rebooting one of these servers would take 30-45 mins due to the length of
time it takes to mount all the VCFS.
CRS is free in the context of our use. 11gR2 is even better with the ACFS
capabilities. No longer have to use OCFS2 for the binaries. Lots of
benefits to this type of design including big license savings by moving off
the Solaris chips to cheaper priced (licenseing) Intel chips.
2010/10/21 Zhu Chao <zhuchao@xxxxxxxxx>
> Just curious,how do u think between vcs type of ha, compared with crs?
> Including license, maturity , and ease of management?
> Thx
>
> Best regards
> Zhuchao
>
>
> 在 2010-10-21，3:32，John Thompson <jhthomp@xxxxxxxxx> 写到：
>
> For HA, we use Oracle CRS to mange single instance databases. CRS will
> failover the db and listener in case of failure. For DR, we use Dataguard,
> SRDF.
>
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Michael Dinh <mdinh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> I am curious as to what options are available for HA and what you are
>> using.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have the following list:
>>
>>
>>
>> Veritas Cluster Server
>>
>> VMware VMotion
>>
>> Oracle RAC
>>
>>
>>
>> Ideally, we want to stick with Solaris.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael Dinh
>>
>>
>>
>> NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY - This material is intended for the use of the
>> individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information
>> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
>> laws. BE FURTHER ADVISED THAT THIS EMAIL MAY CONTAIN PROTECTED HEALTH
>> INFORMATION (PHI). BY ACCEPTING THIS MESSAGE, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THE FOREGOING,
>> AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: YOU AGREE TO NOT DISCLOSE TO ANY THIRD PARTY ANY PHI
>> CONTAINED HEREIN, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT
>> NECESSARY TO PERFORM YOUR OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO THE RECEIPT OF THIS
>> MESSAGE. If the reader of this email (and attachments) is not the intended
>> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
>> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please notify the
>> sender of the error and delete the e-mail you received. Thank you.
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
