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

From: Goulet, Dick <>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:02:29 -0500
Message-ID: <>


            I'm sorry, but I have not had similar experience. Most SAN installs that I've worked on have mirrored disk, dual or better interface cards as well as cabling so that there isn't just one path to the drives. I have tried NAS setups that have failed badly, but thankfully those were in a testing mode. Never trust a sales droid, always push the "press-to-test" button.  

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

From: Jared Still [] Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:59 PM
Cc: Goulet, Dick;; Subject: Re: RAC Vs Standby Database between Primary and Secondary Data Centers  

On Jan 21, 2008 9:53 AM, Dan Norris <> 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.

Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist 

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 Tue Jan 22 2008 - 09:02:29 CST

Original text of this message