FW: Moving to RAC`

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark W. Farnham [mailto:mwf_at_rsiz.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 2:28 PM
To: 'dmarc-noreply_at_freelists.org'; 'oracle-l_at_freelists.org' Subject: RE: Moving to RAC`

Interesting take: Regardless of whether it is a useful decision and still open for discussion, the motivation(s) for the change ARE important inputs to the ensuing configuration.

Good point.

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala (Redacted sender "mgogala_at_yahoo.com" for DMARC) Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2015 12:36 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Moving to RAC`

On 03/01/2015 07:45 AM, Andrew Kerber wrote:
> Hey Mladen - he said the need for RAC wasn't part of this discussion. So
let's not worry about it and just advise him on his question.
>
> So one other thing to keep in mind. Companies may certify their
application in RAC and only mean there is nothing in RAC that will break their App. Eg, the sequence issue mentioned before. That does not mean their app is suitable for RAC and will scale well in a RAC environment.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>

But the answer to the question is crucial. If he wants to achieve more resilience and fault tolerance, he needs to set the system up one way and if he needs to run reports, it's another setup, and if the system is a DW system, it's yet another set of settings. To tell him how to scale, I must know what does he want to do and why. That's the philosophical catch 22.5.

--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
http://mgogala.freehostia.com

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


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