Re: Building a 10gR1 RAC
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:51:54 -0400
I absolutely agree with Hemant--if you're making a significant change in architecture, presumably it is due to a business requirement for some better scalability and/or redundancy (HA) in the environment. If that assumption is correct, you'd be very wise to pick a well-supported, widely deployed release like 10g R2 instead of 10g R1. I think you'll have a much better chance at success on 10g R2 and you'll certainly find more helpful hints from mailing lists, forums, and (gasp) Oracle Support.
Having said all that, I'm not an Apps DBA, but from my novice reading of section 1.2 in the note referenced below, I don't see the 18.104.22.168 is required. Maybe 22.214.171.124 is disguised as some other name that is listed there. The example that follows in section 2 does depict 126.96.36.199, but that doesn't mean that the example is using the minimums. Regardless, based on what little I know about apps, 188.8.131.52 does sound to be a Good Thing all around and something you should consider if stability, availability, and scalability are important to your business.
Hemant K Chitale wrote:
> See MetaLink Note#362135.1 titled
> "Configuring Oracle Applications Release 11i with 10g Release2 Real
> Application Clusters and Automatic Storage Management"
> You should be on 184.108.40.206 -- if you ARE taking the effort to go RAC,
> why not CU2 ?
> CU2 would be worth it.
> Hemant K Chitale