Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Virtual RAC on Solaris E15k

RE: Virtual RAC on Solaris E15k

From: Mark Moynahan <Mark.Moynahan_at_apollogrp.edu>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:20:59 -0700
Message-ID: <73BB49215339D743903095833FFE4B17DA4FF7@apophxex4.apollogrp.edu>


True, if one node goes down the other nodes will not be affected.

What has been proposed is that we create a domain(node) for each system board. Then build a RAC system amongst the multiple domains. That way there if one board fails, thus making a domain fail, the RAC system would continue working.

Currently, we have a dedicated 9i db running on one domain. The domain has multiple boards. If one of the boards fail the DB goes down. Management wants to get away from having this situation occur.

Cheers!

Mark

-----Original Message-----

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Khedr, Waleed Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 2:18 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: RE: Virtual RAC on Solaris E15k

Redundancy in e15K is built in such way that after domain'ing the machine, each node is completely self sufficient.

Problem in one node is isolated from the other node.

Read about "Dynamic System Domains"

Regards,

Waleed

-----Original Message-----

From: Mark Moynahan [mailto:Mark.Moynahan_at_apollogrp.edu] Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:38 PM
To: 'oracle-l_at_freelists.org'
Subject: Virtual RAC on Solaris E15k

Management has come to our team and asked about putting a 9i RAC on a single
e15K. We completed their request by building a two node cluster on a single
e15k. The problem is that management thinks this will buy them redundancy.
When management was asked 'How would RAC on e15k provide redundancy if the
e15k goes down?' their rebuttal was 'The e15k rarely ever goes down and there needs to be db redundancy in relation to the e15k hardware.' This doesn't make sense to me. Why bother with virtual RAC when there is still a
single point of failure? The added complexity of RAC doesn't provide any real benefits. Can anyone argue in favor of putting virtual RAC on an e15k?
Wouldn't a logical standby be a better option?

Thanks,

Mark



Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
Received on Thu Jun 17 2004 - 17:18:46 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US