RE: Is RAC really HA on Linux

  • From: "Rognes, Sten" <Sten.Rognes@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:56:50 -0700

Hi Steve,
If HA is you main concern, I'd take a look at VCS for Linux (Storage
Edition). I would not be surprised if most Oracle customers have less
downtime with VCS than RAC on Linux. You might also find the VCS technology
stack easier to admin than RAC/Linux on current Oracle versions.


-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Stephen Evans
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 11:28 AM
To: Niall Litchfield
Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Is RAC really HA on Linux

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 

hope i'm not rambling too much.


To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&subject=unsubscribe 
To search the archives -

Other related posts: