Re: rac network question

From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 08:48:51 -0600
Message-ID: <ad3aa4c90801110648p13f6a0f6s9da146d95eec17be@mail.gmail.com>


I'm not even sure it will work. The private network is supposed to be for node-node communication. A lot of two node racs use a crossover cable for that connection, just to make sure nothing else will interfere. If this is truly a high visibility, mission critical database, this is simply a poor design.

On Jan 11, 2008 8:46 AM, Michael McMullen <ganstadba_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

> I agree it will work, but isn't the private and public supposed to be
> physically separate, not logically?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Matthew Zito [mailto:mzito_at_gridapp.com]
> *Sent:* January 10, 2008 5:08 PM
> *To:* ganstadba_at_hotmail.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> *Subject:* RE: rac network question
>
>
>
> Actually, just so's we're 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

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

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Fri Jan 11 2008 - 08:48:51 CST

Original text of this message