Re: Parrallel Server Question

From: Chuckster <chuckycarson_at_networkcloud.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 16:02:40 -0800
Message-ID: <3DC9ADA0.1070000@networkcloud.com>

Yes, that is a good point, we also plan to move to 9i by Q2 next year (well realitically in my eyes, Q3)

Is RAC the 'replacement' for 9i parrallel server?

Thx,CC

Ronald Rood wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 18:03:07 +0100, Chuckster wrote
> (in message <3DC94B4B.50004_at_networkcloud.com>):
>
>

>>I just wanted to inquiry about the overall management of parrallel 
>>oracle, is it too much a pain in the ass?
>>
>>We mainly need it for redundancy. Small downtimes of 1 hour or less are 
>>acceptable and we currently have stand-by backup databases. However, I 
>>would sleep better with parallel server in place, unless it is a major 
>>pain in the ass.

>
>
> If downtimes of 1 hour are no problem I would advise to stick with the
> standby database. In 9i with dataguard you can do lots of fun things with it.
> It's not that I am against rac/ops but against blindfolded choosing them
> because of some hype. Your redundancy will be better using standby databases
> since you don't share the discs as you don on rac/ops systems.
>

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------

   http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =----- Received on Wed Nov 06 2002 - 18:02:40 CST