Re: Oracle RAC

From: Terry Dykstra <>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:29:42 GMT
Message-ID: <qpQnm.42473$Db2.34537_at_edtnps83>

"John Hurley" <> wrote in message On Sep 3, 8:43 am, (Jim Watts) wrote:


> Everyone thank you for the information.
> The choice of Oracle on Windows was not mine.
> The reason that RAC is being looked into is to allow for high availability
> during registration and to prevent people from having to come in after
> hours
> to flip hardware around for a failure.
> I understand that there are other possible options. But I have to cover
> all
> my bases.

The argument is that unless you have some very very strong in house expertise you are likely to get less uptime ( more downtime ) in a RAC configuration than you are in a single server configuration. Plus that expertise has to be available pretty much immediately 24 x 7 x 365.

When you toss in the idea of running RAC on a windows based server that kind of magnifies this type of issue.

The reliability/availability of a unix/linux server tends to be in the 99.9 percent range. ( Some might argue that linux is more like 99.8 ).

Many many years ago "if" one was running oracle on a windows based server it was not uncommon to have to plan a weekly if not daily reboot of the server. Not necessarily oracle based problems but from the operating system.

That left a very bad taste in many people's experience of oracle on windows. Some if not all of those types of considerations may not be so valid any longer ( no real idea thank you very much ).

You probably won't get this much honest real world experience from a 3rd party oracle partner trying to push a RAC windows based system sales opportunity.

In our shop we run W3K and databases run for months in a row without ever needing to shutdown. Now if you insist on installing every MS Security patch every time new ones come out, obviously you cannot achieve that kind of uptime.

Terry Dykstra 
Received on Thu Sep 03 2009 - 09:29:42 CDT

Original text of this message