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

From: Nigel Thomas <nigel_cl_thomas_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:08:18 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <545762.45796.qm@web58811.mail.re1.yahoo.com>

Dick

What about "stretch clusters"? You can (allegedly) separate your RAC nodes by several kilometres (up to 30 miles/50 km seems to be regarded as acceptable). Of course that has an impact on interconnect speed so you'd also probably want to partition your workload very carefully - but the theory is plausible (it had better be - my current project is expecting to use a stretch cluster).

So if one data center goes down (maybe it was just short of runway 271 at Heathrow the other day), you still have one/some of your nodes in the surviving centre...

Regards Nigel

• Original Message ---- From: "Goulet, Dick" <richard.goulet_at_capgemini.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 3:24:26 PM

Bob,

    RAC is not a High Availability solution in and of itself. RAC [snip] ... 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
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Robert Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:16 PM

Gurus,

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,
Bob

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

Received on Mon Jan 21 2008 - 11:08:18 CST