Re: Is RAC really HA on Linux
- From: Stephen Evans <evans036@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 14:28:28 -0400
niall,
agreed with the single database bit. We still plan on having a stand-by
that can provide us with zero data loss (but definitely not HA).
it is interesting that you perceive RAC as not addressing HA (but only
scalability). and of course the db is a single point of failure in a RAC
config (unless you mitigate that with some kind of SAN based continuous
copy with auto failover to that too).
so do folks generally consider (not withstanding the db as a single point
of failure) that RAC is NOT considered high availability? I think i'm
inclined to agree with Niall's viewpoint if we cannot do rolling upgrades
within the cluster. From memory, oracle RAC can only withstand rolling
upgrades if the patch is designated as such (and patchsets are NOT).
does anyone know if future versions of oracle RAC will support rolling
upgrades/patchsets?
hope i'm not rambling too much.
steve
Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
09/13/2004 10:27 AM
Please respond to Niall Litchfield
To: evans036@xxxxxxxxxxx
cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is RAC really HA on Linux
Comments inline
On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 10:11:41 -0400, Stephen Evans <evans036@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> i hope i addressed this right - its my first post.
looks like it!
> i am looking at RAC to provide an HA environment on Linux (most likely
> Redhat AS3)
I think I'd view RAC as a scalability solution for Oracle rather than
an HA solution. You still only have the one database with RAC, what
happens if that DB suffers a failure?
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&subject=unsubscribe
To search the archives - //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
Other related posts:
