Re: RAC and scalability
From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:57:33 -0700
Message-ID: <1207619851.498957@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
>
> Can you corroborate this?
> From my end it looks like a 3 node cluster will make things worse, as
> you will have 3 caches in sync (and no, this particular app was not
> designed for RAC, it was ported from sqlserver)
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:57:33 -0700
Message-ID: <1207619851.498957@bubbleator.drizzle.com>
sybrandb_at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 10:07:09 -0700, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
> wrote:
>
>> From Oracle's standpoint a 2 node cluster is a special case and you >> should always try to go with a 3 node minimum.
>
> Can you corroborate this?
> From my end it looks like a 3 node cluster will make things worse, as
> you will have 3 caches in sync (and no, this particular app was not
> designed for RAC, it was ported from sqlserver)
You are correct about performance ... I was referring to the fact that with a two node cluster, if you lose one node, you have a stand-alone and RAC is no longer giving you the ability to failover or load balance. If you go to three nodes you can lose one, whether due to failure or for maintenance, and you still have a cluster.
-- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.orgReceived on Mon Apr 07 2008 - 20:57:33 CDT