RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?
- From: "David" <thump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: somckit.khemmanivanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:27:04 -0700 (PDT)
RAC and a cost effective solution is an oxymoron.
Add another node...
If you have'nt seen these papers, they sum it up nicely and accuratly in
my opinion:
http://www.miracleas.dk/WritingsFromMogens/YouProbablyDontNeedRACUSVersion.pdf
http://www.miracleas.dk/images/upload/Docs/MS%20OracleRAC%20whitepaper.pdf
--
..
David
> Well RAC is not the SAN right? RAC is HA for the Oracle Instance.
>
> If you're saying the total HA solution involves eliminating all SPOFs,
> I'd agree but cost is always a limiting factor in that regard...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:04 PM
> To: Khemmanivanh, Somckit
> Cc: Vlado Barun; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?
>
>
>
> On 6/1/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit <somckit.khemmanivanh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> Let's say we already have Service Guard in house. For new
> implementations should we go with MCSG or look at RAC? RAC is an
> HA and
> scalability solution (MCSG is purely HA). I'm trying to get a
> good
>
>
>
> RAC might be many things, but HA is not one of them.
>
> The disk subsystem is a single point of failure: you only have one
> database.
>
> --
> Jared Still
> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
>
>
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
