Re: another question regarding rdbms on cluster

  • From: Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: exriscer@xxxxxxxxx, Oracle-L <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 22:06:56 +0800

Like those (a) Multiple ORACLE_HOMEs ?? (b) Seperate Unix IDs for each install ??

The first "advantage" of a local install is that file-corruption/file-system corruption does not render both nodes unusable.
The second "advantage" is that you can patch one install (with the DB instance running from the second install).
Oh and another one (which I've actually seen) : when a consultant/vendor is asked to install / configure oracle software
he can actually double the number of billable hours.

Personally, I prefer installing on the shared storage.
1. I have to patch once only, not twice and not switch the database instance twice.
2. I do not have to worrry about keeping files (listener.ora/tnsnames.ora/etc) "in sync"

On TruCluster 9iRAC with a single install is a breeze (don't have to worry about rcp !).
On SunCluster, too, I have installations on shared storage -- failover is that much easier.
The same on AIX (however, the DB2 guys on AIX much preferred local installs and some months
later found that there were some differences between the local installs -- files missing from one node !).

When installing in a Filer (eg NetApp filer) environment, too, I would prefer to have installed on the
shared storage (although my vendor convinced me to install on local disks that time. I increased it
from one oracle_home to 5 oracle_homes and, instead of installing oracle 5 times, I ended up
installing oracle 10 times, configuring the listener.ora/tnsnames.ora 10 time etc).


At 08:22 AM Friday, you wrote:
Hi again

As I have mentioned in my previous post I have installed a database in a HA environment using Service Guard. In the past I have always installed the software and created the database in the shared storage. My customer has a policy however which states that software installations in cluster environment must be local in each node. I cant tell him what advantage/disadvantge each situation can have. The only ones I can think of is using a single software it´s faster to patch but with seperate sofwtare we might have a better availability, while patching one node the other can service requests. Any other suggestions? Where do you guys install the software to? The shared storage or the local?

Hemant K Chitale


Other related posts: