| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: Oracle and High Availability solutions
We felt that by keeping OPS out of the picture, we would have fewer =
administrative headaches. In the event of a failure, it is acceptable for =
the database to be down for a few minutes, so why add all of the hassel of =
OPS?
Sorry, but I can't shed any light on Veritas.
>>> "Steve Orr" <sorr_at_arzoo.com> 05/08/00 01:37PM >>>
I'm curious... why use cluster management software without OPS? As I
understand it, with a cluster management only solution, you have to =
failover
to another machine by shutting down the first machine, shutting down and
remounting the file system on the failover machine, and starting up Oracle
on the failover machine in crash recovery mode. With OPS you just keep =
going
without the need for a failover. Why dedicate a second machine for =
failover
when you can just use it in parallel? The reason I ask is because our
sysadmin folks are trying to impose Veritas Cluster Manager on DBA team
members who are keen on OPS.
Does anyone have any experience with Veritas Cluster Manager or know of anyone who has? Any opinions on Veritas?
TIA!!!
Steve Orr
> Dear All,
>
> Consider High Availability (HA) Oracle systems, i.e UNIX and
> MC/ServiceGuard / TruCluster / HACMP etc
> where the Oracle database and binaries are held on a 'highly resilient'
> shared disk array which can be
> accessed from 2 or more servers.
>
> When either the HA Service providing Oracle is gracefully 'bounced' from
> one
> server to the other, or is restarted on an alternate server due to the
main
> server
> crashing etc, is it true to state that only one server at any one time =
is
> accessing
> ( or can access ) the Oracle database.
>
> Oracle parallel server is NOT being used !
>
> In all cases, 'simple' scripts are used by the HA Service to stop and
start
> Oracle,
> which normally mimic what an operator would do anyway.
>
> I would have thought that 2 sets of binaries accessing the same database
> would have disatrous consequences.
>
>
> Any thought / experience / comments please .....
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Steve Parker
> Technical Consultant
> LIS
>
> --
> Author:
> INET: Steve.Parker_at_lis.co.uk=20
>
> Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
> San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
> to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
> the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
> (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
> also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
--=20
Author: Steve Orr
INET: sorr_at_arzoo.com=20
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051 San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists --------------------------------------------------------------------To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may Received on Mon May 08 2000 - 12:12:46 CDT
 |
 |