Re: Database High Availability

"Richard Foote" <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com> wrote in news:XS25a.51729$jM5.130281_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com:

> Hi Chuck,
>
> An important point you've missed though is with fail-over, one node is
> sitting around, chilling out, doing zippo while with RAC, both nodes
> (or as many as you have configured) are earning their keep. Also with
> fail-over, both nodes need to be spec'ed to "production" requirements
> while with RAC it's the sum of the nodes that needs to spec'ed
> sufficiently (with the sum of the nodes minus 1 being able to at cope
> "well enough" at least temporarily).
>
> Whether that's enough to compensate for the extra expense is another
> matter ...

Not necessarily. Our fail-over clusters are configured as "active/active" meaning all are running production resources (databases in our case) all the time. Should one fail, it's counterpart can pick up the load "well enough" until the failure is fixed. We get nearly the availability of RAC, none of the overhead, and none of the extra cost. Received on Thu Feb 20 2003 - 11:02:42 CST