I have this configuration (your 1st example), as a "backup" solution if our
primary server goes down. But it never does.
Should it go down I would restart the db on the secondary server which sees
the same disks and thus can startup the database (OpenVMS cluster). I have
the listener running at all times on both servers. Only the primary server`s
listener ever receives connect requests.
- the timeout is very long trying to connect to the primary server when
it`s down. After about 90 seconds it effectiveley connects to the secondary
server.
- If the 1st address is "alive" even though Oracle is not starting on it,
it will not try the 2nd address and report that the service does not respond
(i.e. it can talk to the machine but there is no one listening on that port)
HTH
--
Syltrem
http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site - en français)
To reply to myself directly, remove zulu from my address
<Me_at_here.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
3d5d3fe8.2801999_at_news-server.kc.rr.com...
> I have a Win2000 laptop running Ora 8.1.6. On the road I will use the
> builtin ethernet port (fixed IP *.*.*.150), in the office the port in
> the docking station (fixed IP *.*.*.151). When a second machine is
> trying to connect to the db I would like it to try 150 first then 151
> (or at least to try both in some order). In reading the documentation
> I can find it would seem something like this should work
>
> oradb1 =
> (DESCRIPTION =
> (ADDRESS_LIST =
> (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = xxx.xxx.xxx.150)(PORT = 1521))
> (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = xxx.xxx.xxx.151)(PORT = 1521))
> )
> (CONNECT_DATA =
> (SID = oradb1)
> )
> )
>
>
> but when I try it it only attempts the first entry and timesout if it
> is not available.
>
> I have also tried
>
> oradb1 =
> (DESCRIPTION =
> (ADDRESS_LIST =
> (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = xxx.xxx.xxx.150)(PORT = 1521))
> (ADDRESS = (PROTOCOL = TCP)(HOST = xxx.xxx.xxx.151)(PORT = 1521))
> )
> (SOURCE_ROUTE = yes)
> (CONNECT_DATA =
> (SID = oradb1)
> )
> )
>
> With no luck.
>
> Is this configuration possible? Any suggestions?
>
> Thanks
Received on Fri Aug 16 2002 - 13:52:33 CDT
