Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:14:13 -0800 (PST)
I don't follow--maybe you read into what I wrote. When I said "...can tolerate a failure of a single component without affecting application availability..." I meant *any* component, including storage. Not just a disk, an array too. Oh yeah, I love lots of hardware :). I once heard someone say that you either way money or availability, but you don't get to have both.
Please correct me if I misinterpreted your comment.
- Original Message ---- From: Jared Still <jkstill_at_gmail.com> To: dannorris_at_dannorris.com Cc: richard.goulet_at_capgemini.com; mssql_2002_at_yahoo.com; oracle-l_at_freelists.org Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 4:58:46 PM Subject: Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers
On Jan 21, 2008 9:53 AM, Dan Norris <dannorris_at_dannorris.com> wrote:
Here's where I think we need to make clear what defines "high availability" versus what becomes "disaster recovery". Many sites want/need both. In my dictionary, I define high availability as a system that can tolerate a failure of a single component without affecting the application availability.
The problem I have with that definition is the the HW duplicated is not the HW most prone to failure - the storage.
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l Received on Mon Jan 21 2008 - 17:14:13 CST