Pete Sharman <peter.sharman_at_oracle.com> wrote in message news:<afdidu0ohb_at_drn.newsguy.com>...
> Still doesn't tell me what form of redundancy. Machine failure and disaster
> recovery are two completely different requirements. You can't use a single
> cluster to provide both.
That's not true. You can have cluster configuration which perfectly
protects you from machine failure and also works as disaster recovery.
It was discussed here recently.
Is interesting how Oracle people are insisting that RAC is for machine
failure backup and you should use a stand-by (Data Guard) for disaster
recovery (heard that couple of time this week).
Which is simply not true. RAC can be a perfect part in your disaster
recovery plans. The major difference between possibilities of RAC and
Data Guard in terms of failure protecting, is delayed stand-by, which
is a great feature if you don't believe your employees. Then Data
Guard is the only option, but if you just want to be protected against
fire, floods, Bin-Laden etc, then RAC is a sensible solution.
--
_________________________________________
Dusan Bolek, Ing.
Oracle team leader
Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
email.
Received on Fri Jun 28 2002 - 06:26:35 CDT
