From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Thu Jun 2 18:06:32 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j52N6Waa019710 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:06:32 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j52N6VNi019706 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 18:06:31 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 2C1151BB202; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28222-09; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:03:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 928BD1BAFFD; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 17:03:25 -0500 (EST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=nmFghQsdx0WGYwyW4iPIHIWng7k1GGDtzTBDT3qVn4ivBIafqJjVsOV+oj1Ukh8C1tc0m3dOsKFCJaTh7m047Dbca7wGACOLOLDlcAbbN+yrSBdrtI5nl09bcl9vD3PbqbmZC8tpeBBMmmIRCwUQqZmSLdcOEvRqqwBPe+KLW5Y= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:01:33 +0100 From: Jared Still To: "Khemmanivanh, Somckit" Subject: Re: Oracle RAC cost justification? Cc: oracle-l@freelists.org In-Reply-To: <65C0D8935651CB4D96E97CEFAC5A12B90AFE03@wafedixm10.corp.weyer.pri> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain References: <65C0D8935651CB4D96E97CEFAC5A12B90AFE03@wafedixm10.corp.weyer.pri> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 20608 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: jkstill@gmail.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: jkstill@gmail.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.63 On 6/2/05, Khemmanivanh, Somckit wrote: > > Whoa, a SAN is non-redundant??? > > I agree it could still be a SPOF but it certainly is redundant component > wise... > > Maybe so. If your SAN goes down, you are out of business, regardless of the number of redundant components it houses. SANs will and do fail. -- Jared Still Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l