RE: Is RAC really HA on Linux

Hi Steve,
If HA is you main concern, I'd take a look at VCS for Linux (Storage Edition). I would not be surprised if most Oracle customers have less downtime with VCS than RAC on Linux. You might also find the VCS technology stack easier to admin than RAC/Linux on current Oracle versions.

Sten

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

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Evans
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 11:28 AM To: Niall Litchfield
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Is RAC really HA on Linux

niall,
agreed with the single database bit. We still plan on having a stand-by that can provide us with zero data loss (but definitely not HA).

it is interesting that you perceive RAC as not addressing HA (but only scalability). and of course the db is a single point of failure in a RAC config (unless you mitigate that with some kind of SAN based continuous copy with auto failover to that too).

so do folks generally consider (not withstanding the db as a single point of failure) that RAC is NOT considered high availability? I think i'm inclined to agree with Niall's viewpoint if we cannot do rolling upgrades within the cluster. From memory, oracle RAC can only withstand rolling upgrades if the patch is designated as such (and patchsets are NOT).

does anyone know if future versions of oracle RAC will support rolling upgrades/patchsets?

hope i'm not rambling too much.

steve

--

To unsubscribe - mailto:oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org&subject=unsubscribe To search the archives - http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ Received on Mon Sep 13 2004 - 13:52:30 CDT