Re: rac network question

From: Dan Norris <dannorris_at_dannorris.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <452586.19470.qm@web35403.mail.mud.yahoo.com>


I didn't know that was possible--there's the one thing I learned today! Do you know if the Oracle installer will recognize those interfaces as separate during clusterware installation? If not, that might shut this whole thing down. However, if the installer gets along with this configuration, then I'd agree that while not optimal, it should work. Still not sure if it's technically "supported" or not, but not sure it's worth worrying about (interpret that as you wish :). Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Matthew Zito <mzito_at_gridapp.com> To: ganstadba_at_hotmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 4:07:31 PM Subject: RE: rac network question <!-- _filtered {margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;} _filtered {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;} span.emailstyle17 {font-family:Arial;color:windowtext;} span.emailstyle18 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;} div.Section1 {} --> Actually, just sos were all clear, with the VLAN support that the gentleman described originally, the interfaces will appear separate eth0.1 and eth0.2 (note: different than eth0:1 and eth0:2). The traffic will be shared, but as long as the bonding works as it should, it just means that if a card is lost, both the interconnect and the VIP will fail over to the other link. IMHO, while this is suboptimal, it should work fine. Matt From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Michael McMullen Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:01 PM To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: RE: rac network question Thats what hes done, combined the both so public & private traffic is combined. Im assuming its not supported and as such as this will be a very high profile, critical database, hell have to change. -----Original Message----- From: Dan Norris [mailto: dannorris_at_dannorris.com ] Sent: January 10, 2008 11:06 AM To: ganstadba_at_hotmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Subject: Re: rac network question 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.

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Jan 10 2008 - 16:28:43 CST

Original text of this message