Re: Documentation for reasons to NOT use RAC?

From: Guillermo Alan Bort <cicciuxdba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:17:34 -0200
Message-ID: <172762181002220517m435aa016o7e45dfb197c7d90_at_mail.gmail.com>

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.

Alan.-

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
> idea?
>
> 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"
>

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

Received on Mon Feb 22 2010 - 07:17:34 CST