Re: "In search of a mythical beast," Clusterd, raid, filesystem

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message news:1145566848.149188_at_yasure.drizzle.com...
> Andreas Sheriff wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a client who has two disparate disk arrays that can't talk to each
>> other.
>> I'd like to have a shared Oracle home using a clustered filesystem, but,
>> to my knowledge, I cannot find a compatible clustered filesystem that
>> offers redundancy in case one of the arrays becomes a door stop.
>>
>> Does anyone know of any clustered filesystem that can provide redundancy
>> through two disparate disk arrays?
>>
>> Here are some specifics:
>>
>> The database is 10gR2 SE RAC base installation (no patches yet).
>> The OS is Redhat EE U3, 64 bit, SMP (1 dual core Xeon), 8 gigs of
>> memory..
>> Database files are handled by ASM using disks from each array.
>> The two disk arrays are connected via iSCSI.
>>
>> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> PS: I *really* love the fact that 10gR2 allows you to configure mirrored
>> copies of the OCR and voting disks during installation.
>
> Could you be more precise when you say ... "disparate disk arrays that
> can't talk to each other." Storage arrays talking to each other?
>
> Are you asking about multipathing? And whose array's are they (EMC?
> NetApp? Hitachi?).
>
> If you are moving toward RAC the manufacturer or the array could make
> a very big difference.
>
> Essentially your three choices are RAW (w/wo ASM), OCFS, or a NetApp.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)

Disparate disk arrays means two separate Promise iSCSI disk arrays. They are connected through individual nodes through an HBA and a switch, but cannot perform RAID functions with each other (I know that sounds dirty.)

No, it's not multipathing. There's only one HBA that connects to both arrays through iSCSI, though multipathing is a good idea and should be implemented, it adds to the cost of the system. The client is cost conscious.

I'm using OCFS2 to connect to one of the arrays for a shared Oracle home.

Basically, I'd like a shared Oracle home, but I want it redundant over both arrays (clustered, raid, filesystem). The client's argument is that the shared Oracle home existing on only one array is a SPOF if the array containing the shared Oracle home goes down, and he's right. That's why I'm researching a solution that will provide redundancy for the shared Oracle home over both arrays. OCFS2 (to my knowledge) cannot do that.

I spoke to a VERITAS representative a little while ago and he suggested Storage Foundation for Oracle HA.

BTW, when the heck did Symantec buy VERITAS?

-- 
Andreas
Oracle 9i Certified Professional
Oracle 10g Certified Professional
Oracle 9i Certified PL/SQL Developer


"If you don't eat your meat, you cannot have any pudding.
"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!?!"
---

WARNING:
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL
Reply to me only on this newsgroup