Re: rac network question

And you know, I have read that also now that you mention it. But, I have seen a crossover cable used. But, in those cases as I recall they also had at least two physical interfaces for the public and two for the private.

On Jan 11, 2008 9:35 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris_at_dannorris.com> wrote:

> Ahem, "a lot" better be zero as I'm quite certain that Oracle specifically
> does not support the use of crossover cables in any cluster configuration. I
> remember because I learned that the hard way (and returned fire with "how
> about you document that a wee little bit please"). Anyway, I think the
> answer to Michael's question is yes, they should be physically separate.
> Even if it will work, it will be "suboptimal" as pointed out by Matt
> earlier.
>
> If it's critical, don't do it. If it's dev, you'll probably survive
> (except for the fact that your dev and production systems will not have this
> in common and therefore may have slightly different behavior).
>
> Dan
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrew Kerber <andrew.kerber_at_gmail.com>
> To: ganstadba_at_hotmail.com
> Cc: Matthew Zito <mzito_at_gridapp.com>; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:48:51 AM
> Subject: Re: rac network question
>
> 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.'
>
>

-- 
Andrew W. Kerber

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

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