Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:08:18 -0800 (PST)
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...
- Original Message ---- From: "Goulet, Dick" <richard.goulet_at_capgemini.com> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 3:24:26 PM
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
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Bob Robert Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 4:16 PM
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,