Re: "Correct" term for a 1:1 relationship between a "database" and an "instance" where > 1 such things are on the same physical server?
From: ddf <oratune_at_msn.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4c48f7b0-5da3-4b9c-900d-8c4fcda4ff45_at_g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 22, 8:37 am, dana <dana_at_w..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's another question for you:
>
> 1) Would there ever be any practical reason for two instances (procs +
> SGA) to access the same database (collection of data treated as a
> unit) on the same, unpartitioned physical server?
>
>
> Dana
>
> Dana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4c48f7b0-5da3-4b9c-900d-8c4fcda4ff45_at_g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 22, 8:37 am, dana <dana_at_w..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's another question for you:
>
> 1) Would there ever be any practical reason for two instances (procs +
> SGA) to access the same database (collection of data treated as a
> unit) on the same, unpartitioned physical server?
>
>
> Dana
>
> Dana
That, I believe, is the basic definition of RAC -- two or more instances accessing a single database.
David Fitzjarrell Received on Wed Jul 22 2009 - 09:29:17 CDT