Re: Documentation for reasons to NOT use RAC?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:17:34 -0200
Not from the technical point of view... but have they considered the cost involved in RAC? Besides Oracle Licensing, you need a very good storage and a stable dedicated network for interconnect (it should work using a vlan segmentation). Also, RAC does not mean high availability.... it just means that in the event of certain hardware failures the DB will still be up. I think that any db that merits the risks and costs of RAC, also merits having an off-site DataGuard to reduce downtime in the event of a catastrophic failure in the datacentre.
RAC involves a lot of work, a lot of maintenance and a lot of risk of hitting one of the many bugs it has... I think that the burden of proof, so to speak, should be on the ones trying to install it.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:52 AM, <TESTAJ3_at_nationwide.com> wrote:
> I'm being pulled into a meeting later this morning to answer why we
> shouldn't put every db in RAC? Any white papers etc, stating why its a bad
> thanks, joe
> Joe Testa, Oracle Certified Professional
> Senior Engineering & Administration Lead
> (Work) 614-677-1668
> (Cell) 614-312-6715
> Interested in helping out your marriage?
> Ask me about "Weekend to Remember"