RE: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers

From: Goulet, Dick <>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:24:26 -0500
Message-ID: <>


        RAC is not a High Availability solution in and of itself. A RAC system must have all servers in the same physical location which leaves you vunerable to earth quakes, fires, etc..... Standby database is there to protect you against these types of disasters by placing an identical copy of your database in a separate physical location that presumably will not get hit by the "9/11 factor" at the same time. The first thing you should do is determine what your trying to protect against and then plan accordingly. RAC will protect you against a single server failure in your local data center. Standby can protect you against a single server failure as well, but adds protection for a 9/11 incident at the same time..

Dick Goulet / Capgemini
North America P&C / East Business Unit
Senior Oracle DBA / Hosting
Office: 508.573.1978 / Mobile: 508.742.5795 / Fax: 508.229.2019 / Email: 45 Bartlett St. / Marlborough, MA 01752

Together: the Collaborative Business Experience

-----Original Message-----

[] On Behalf Of Bob Robert Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:16 PM
Subject: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers


I need your opinion regarding setting up High Availability solution between Primary and Secondary Data Centers. Is it better to go with Oracle RAC or Oracle Standby database.

Thanks In Advance,

Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ


This message contains information that may be privileged or confidential and is the property of the Capgemini Group. It is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or use this message or any part thereof. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message.

-- Received on Mon Jan 21 2008 - 09:24:26 CST

Original text of this message