RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?
- From: "David" <thump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rjamya@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 08:49:51 -0700
It works fine...
Users get errors and have to reconnect.
If that is okay, then that is cool.
For what I do though, that is unacceptable.
My point is I bet you can accomplish the same without RAC.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx =
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of rjamya
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 5:55 AM
To: thump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: mgogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; tim@xxxxxxxxx; Oracle Discussion List
Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?
We do and I can tell you, if implemeted correctly, it works fine. =
Hundreds=20
of our users who rely on split-second response times do not even know if =
their application gets moved from one node to another. Might be because =
for=20
such critical sessions we do pre-connects. but yes, it works. For=20
applications it is usually few seconds when they get errors and have to=20
connect again.
Raj
On 6/2/05, David <thump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>=20
> Who is using TAF here?
> Does it work seamlessy or transparantly? No issues?
> If you lose a node/instance, what happens next? Is there any impact on =
> the others heads in terms of smon/eviction? How long does it take to=20
> get the application to start hitting an instance an another node?
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
select standard_disclaimer from company_requirements where category =3D=20
'MANDATORY';
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
