Re: rac network question

From: Andrew Kerber <>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 10:21:46 -0600
Message-ID: <>

Dan beat me to it. RAC is supposed to have separate public and private interfaces.

On Jan 10, 2008 10:05 AM, Dan Norris <> wrote:

> Michael,
> I see a huge problem and very likely a support issue as well. Basically
> what he's saying is that the host will have a *single* logical network
> interface. That *single* interface will need to serve as the private and
> public interface and that's where Oracle Support may have some major
> problems.
> If these blades only support 2 NICs (and you have no opportunities to
> expand them), then I'd elect to leave the redundancy aside and take a NIC
> failure as a whole node failure. Since the only other choice is to combine
> public and private networks over a single logical interface, removing
> redundancy so you have 2 separate logical/physical interfaces would be a
> favorable choice.
> Dan
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Michael McMullen <>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:27:11 AM
> Subject: rac network question
> Our SA's are just setting up some HP blades for us for a rac and he sent
> me this below. Just wondering if anyone on the list sees a problem.
> "Also, since the c class blades have only 2 physical nics, we are going to
> trunk multiple vlans through the same bonded interface. Makes for a
> slightly weird setup; you may want to check it out and play with it before
> this goes live."

Andrew W. Kerber

'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'

Received on Thu Jan 10 2008 - 10:21:46 CST

Original text of this message