RE: RAC design question

  • From: "Walker, Jed S" <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Martin Bach <development@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:23:14 +0000

I thought TAF was built-in to RAC services, so that would be news to me (though 
I’m only a month into RAC). I have a trial system I will have to test this on 
myself. If you get a chance I’d be curious to see what you get. I’ve been 
creating services like

srvctl add service -d rdvrprd -s rdvrprd_atlt -r rdvrprd1 -a 

From: Martin Bach [mailto:development@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 4:52 AM
To: Walker, Jed S
Cc: Frits Hoogland; toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RAC design question

Hi Jed,

indeed, the service will fail over in case your preferred instance crashes. 
However, your sessions won't-it's quite simple to test. Define TAF at the 
service level, define 1 preferred and n (where n > 0) available instances, 
start the service, connect to the service and then kill the instance. You can 
do this in SQLPlus, and you'll see that your connection lost contact.

Does that quick reply make sense? I don't have a system available right now, 
but can do a test if you like and share the output.

Best regards,


On 15/08/2011 16:04, Walker, Jed S wrote:
Thank you Martin, Frits, Toon, and Kumar.

Question though, If I have a service with one preferred instance and multiple 
available instances I believe it should still failover with TAF to any of the 
available instances shouldn’t it? My understanding is that multiple preferred 
instances is for spreading the load across multiple instances, not failover.

From: Martin Bach [mailto:development@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 7:33 AM
To: Frits Hoogland; 
Cc: Walker, Jed S; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RAC design question


I would like to put one or two more points into the discussion.

If you would like to prevent connections from dropping by employing TAF you 
need at least 2 preferred instances.  I also got best results from FCF with the 
same setup, plus it could give you runtime load balancing. But then again I 
haven't heard of anyone using FCF (and UCP) in real world applications ...

Since you didn't tell us more about your application you need to decide if 
these points are applicable.

If you really only needed higher availability you could have with an active 
passive cluster and saved on licenses...

How this helps,


Martin Bach

Martin Bach Consulting

----- Reply message -----
From: "Frits Hoogland" 
Date: Sat, Aug 6, 2011 08:57
Subject: RAC design question
To: "toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx"<mailto:toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
Cc: "Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"<mailto:Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 

With the clusterware you can setup a service for every schema which can fail
over to another instance.

Frits Hoogland
cell: +31 6 53569942

Op 6 aug. 2011 om 08:22 heeft Toon Koppelaars 
het volgende geschreven:

I think you've answered that design question very wisely.

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 12:49 AM, Walker, Jed S <Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jed_Walker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%0b>> wrote:

>  Hi,****
> ** **
> I’m new to RAC, but have a question. We have a 5 node RAC that supports
> multiple markets each of which has its own schema. Due to each market having
> its own schema, there is no sharing of blocks between markets. As such, I am
> thinking that it would make sense to have each market work on only one node
> because that would avoid having blocks passed between nodes, and thus should
> be good for performance. (Note: the intent behind RAC was for high
> availability, not for scaling, each node can handle the workload of multiple
> markets).****
> ** **
> Thoughts?****
> ** **
> **-          **Jed****
> ** **

Toon Koppelaars
RuleGen BV

(co)Author: "Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals"<>

Other related posts: