Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: HA & Failover options

Re: HA & Failover options

From: JEDIDIAH <jedi_at_nomad.mishnet>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:32:40 -0500
Message-ID: <8ovtm3-kt7.ln1@nomad.mishnet>


On 2006-06-23, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> Redundant storage arrays huh?
>
> With standalone too if you value your data.
>
>> Suddenly, RAC isn't looking so cheap anymore.
>
> Put up your numbers and I'll put up mine. Lets compare systems.
>
> Work with 12CPUs, load balancing, transparent failover that can
> guarantee 99.99+% availability, and the ability to perform rolling
> upgrades.

        Again, you're ignoring the storage infastructure part of the equation. Even an enterprise grade NFS implementation (from the one and only one supported NFS vendor) is not going to be cheap. The complexity you're trying to push out of the main server is going straight into the storage hardware.

        Even ignoring the more expensive storage, just the extra cost of RAC itself and the subsequent support costs are going to equal in price to a midrange Sun server and it's duplicate.

-- 
	Linux: because everyone should get to drink the beer of their    |||
choice and not merely be limited to pretensious imports or hard cider.  / | \

 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com
Received on Fri Jun 23 2006 - 15:32:40 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US