RE: Parallel Server

We are using OPS quite intensively here. Not necessarily for the correct reasons. OPS certainly assists in maintaining uptime under a lot of circumstances. It is excellent for spreading workload between nodes/instances but you still have to design access to point to different nodes (judicious use of tnsnames entries).

My main reservations re OPS (and the way we have implemented it) are the following 1) The datafiles are still a single point of failure. If a file is corrupt, deleted or whatever then the whole system is effectively down (dependant upon which datafile of course)

2)Even worse if a table is dropped or rows deleted etc there is no easy recovery without loosing uptime 3) OPS was applied to a non OPS application which means that key tables are being accessed all the time by multi nodes, again a key failure issue as well as a performance one.

4) Some schema updates and new releases require downtime which is difficult in a 24*7*365 system !
5) We have found that a lot of effort was required from an OS level (Compaq Tru64 5.1) to get the patches right
6) I think the maintenenace of a cluster and OPS is an expensive option, both in licensing,support costs and manaeagability

Correct me if I am wrong but I always thought that OPS was initially brought out when a 4 CPU node was the maximum and it was a way of hranessing a number of niodes to achieve greater processing power. That is not the case now. I know there are other advantages but as I say I am sure that was the original purpose.

If I had a preference I think I would be tempted to go for 2 servers with a database replicated across each of them. I know that is not an easy solution, but it does provide full resilience as well as the means of taking one server down for maintenance without loosing the system. I think the cost of managing the system is also reduced. Upgrades can be tested on the 2nd server and a fallback position is always available.

As to the original question standby v OPS. I don;t think it is comparing like with like. You really ned to sit down and list what you need, what you would like, how much you have to spend in time, effort and money and then compare standy and OPS against that list

HTH John

-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Ron L. [mailto:rlsmith_at_kmg.com] Sent: 05 December 2001 19:35
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Parallel Server

Is anyone using Oracle Parallel Server?  It that the best solution for a standby server?
Any idea what it would cost?  Are there any classes covering implementation?

Ron Smith

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Smith, Ron L.
  INET: rlsmith_at_kmg.com


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).






>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This electronic message contains information from the mmO2 plc Group 
which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be 
for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the 
intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or 
use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received 
this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email 
(to the numbers or address above) immediately.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>