Re: Real Application Cluster

From: onedbguru <onedbguru_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:52:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <22982145-d984-46fd-8b94-4558bfd57020_at_z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>

On Dec 9, 2:43 pm, John Hurley <hurleyjo..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> Joel:
>
> # Some configurations may have been a toss-up in the first place as to
> whether they need RAC.
>
> Joel this is not like you to be so understated ...
>
> Words like "some" "may have been" "whether they need RAC" ...
>
> What is the average reliability and/or uptime of a modern server
> running linux or solaris?  Pretty dang high probably 99.99 something.
>
> You start adding RAC into the configuration equation and your uptime
> usually goes down.
>
> It takes a deep and talented staff that are highly available to keep a
> RAC system running when odd incidents start popping up.

I would state that RAC is more for availability and [ONLY] if the app is written correctly, scalability . Scalability is not linear, especially when using a certain vendors SAN equipment. Could have been some configuration, but was not a real fan of that vendor any way... I have seen many cases where going RAC actually made things worse - primarily due to poor application AND database logical design issues. Amazing how many development teams allow the developers to create the schema - and they most frequently botch the normalization (either too much (4th-5th) normal form or not enough - as in none)... Received on Tue Dec 13 2011 - 19:52:07 CST