RE: 10g RAC: To have or not to have ORACLE_HOME on the cluster filesystem?

Another thing to keep in mind is that with a CFS, one bad "rm" command could hose your Oracle install for all of your nodes. If you're going to have multiple install mounts on different shared CFS mounts to try to mitigate that, it just seems complicated.

Of course, to Dan's point, if you have 20+ nodes in your RAC cluster, you have to administer it very differently and having a couple shared binary mounts seems manageable.

Matt

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Dan Norris Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:50 AM
To: lizzpenaorclgrp_at_yahoo.com
Cc: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: 10g RAC: To have or not to have ORACLE_HOME on the cluster filesystem?

Personally, I like having local ORACLE_HOMEs for "small" clusters (less than 15 nodes or so). As was mentioned, you can have multiple cluster filesystem ORACLE_HOMEs, but that's sometimes challenging to manage and I don't think it provides any great benefit over local ORACLE_HOMEs unless you have very large clusters (greater than 15 or 20 nodes).

You may also want to consult an excellent recent whitepaper written on this topic by an excellent technician at Oracle. http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/database/clustering/pdf/oh_rac .pdf

Dan

laura pena wrote:
> Can you guys give me opionions reasons why to have the $ORACLE_HOME
> product on the cluster filesystem?
>
>
> I believe on benefit for not doing this is when you upgrade you can
> bring one node down at a time and upgrade.
>
> Also - does having ASM and using RAW matter with this question?
>
>
> Thoughts/opionion?
>
> Thanks,
> Lizz
>

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


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