RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?

"RAC and a cost effective solution is an oxymoron."

I *love* this quote!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of David Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:27 PM
To: somckit.khemmanivanh_at_weyerhaeuser.com Cc: Jared Still; Vlado Barun; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: RE: Oracle RAC cost justification?

RAC and a cost effective solution is an oxymoron. Add another node...

If you have'nt seen these papers, they sum it up nicely and accuratly in my opinion:
http://www.miracleas.dk/WritingsFromMogens/YouProbablyDontNeedRACUSVersi on.pdf

http://www.miracleas.dk/images/upload/Docs/MS%20OracleRAC%20whitepaper.p df

--=20
..
David

> Well RAC is not the SAN right? RAC is HA for the Oracle Instance.
>
> If you're saying the total HA solution involves eliminating all SPOFs,
> I'd agree but cost is always a limiting factor in that regard...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Jared Still [mailto:jkstill_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 4:04 PM
> To: Khemmanivanh, Somckit
> Cc: Vlado Barun; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification?
>
>
>
> On 6/1/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit

<somckit.khemmanivanh_at_weyerhaeuser.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Let's say we already have Service Guard in house. For new
> implementations should we go with MCSG or look at RAC? RAC is an
> HA and
> scalability solution (MCSG is purely HA). I'm trying to get a
> good
>
>
>
> RAC might be many things, but HA is not one of them.
>
> The disk subsystem is a single point of failure: you only have one
> database.
>
> --
> Jared Still
> Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l