Re: Documentation for reasons to NOT use RAC?

From: Guillermo Alan Bort <>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:17:34 -0200
Message-ID: <>

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, <> 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"

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

Original text of this message