Re: Documentation for reasons to NOT use RAC?
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 09:53:41 -0600
Message-ID: <516d05a1002220753m1e8e54beteb66a33c8f144896_at_mail.gmail.com>
Compare the marginal cost of RAC for each systems to a realistic cost-of-downtime for each system -- include downtime for upgrades and server-level outages. My suspicion is that unless there's a hard-and-fast 24x7x365 availability requirement for a customer-facing revenue-generating system, RAC will be significantly more expensive than the alternative.
What's the cost differential between, say, an 8-core SMP machine with Oracle vs. 2 4-cores plus the marginal cost of RAC?
How much more is management willing to spend on human costs around RAC; RAC systems do require more effort to configure and manage; there's more stuff to do, and generally RAC-qualified DBAs cost more.
Also, a single-node RAC implementation will always be slower than a standard non-RAC implementation. Oracle's code path for single node RAC still has to go through all the global enqueue and global cache logic; the whole point of single-node RAC is to provide that sort of regresssion testing.
Even if RAC is free for all of your systems, it's still not free, and still not worth it.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:52 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"
>
-- Adam Musch ahmusch_at_gmail.com -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Feb 22 2010 - 09:53:41 CST