From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Sat Jan 22 17:42:40 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0MNgeSR012422 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:42:40 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0MNgeui012415 for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:42:40 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 06BA16067D; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:41:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06966-09; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:41:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 70E6660679; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:41:56 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6603.0 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: RE: intel clusters in a box Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:39:12 -0500 Message-ID: <7E412C164E6ECB468834A39F31E6E0D406689006@mbs06dc.na.aarp.int> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: intel clusters in a box Thread-Index: AcUAADdZAIO18nohT8+KEy4j41Q6ygA0urA5 From: "Marquez, Chris" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jan 2005 22:39:13.0046 (UTC) FILETIME=[32368360:01C500D3] X-archive-position: 15120 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: CMarquez@aarp.org Precedence: normal Reply-To: CMarquez@aarp.org X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at example.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.60 X-Spam-Level: Paul, -First >> insistent that all data replication between sites=20 >> take the form of synchronous SAN-to-SAN replication, >> in which writes at the primary site are not confirmed >> to the application until the data has traveled over=20 >> the fiber and been written at the remote site as well. You will either have one of the best networks in the world or this mandate will last about a day or less of production use. A customer recently wanted the same thing. We met with EMC,=20 CISCO, HITACHI and others. Basically what I came away with is=20 if you want to mirror your SANs you have to have lots of money=20 for the best network AND STILL, there are distance and other=20 technical and logical restrictions of what you can do. And even when you have ASYNCHRONOUS replications you have a "queue". Any form a Replication and Queues have management hassles. Not saying it isn't possible, but didn't find a good example in our = meetings. -Second >> RAC nodes at the primary site, and one at the secondary,=20 >> all part of the same cluster. Can this configuration,=20 >> can all nodes behave as though they are connected=20 >> to the *same* physical array? Simply no. This config would introduce so much latency at both the=20 disk array level and network (RAC interconnect, aka "Cache Fusion") the performance would be so bad that it would only be something to test=20 and never to use. My customer told us they had heard rumors of a WAN based interconnect=20 protocol for RAC...and I guess the whole "Grid" idea (will) means = geographical=20 distant RAC nodes, but I'm telling you this is the future...its not = today. =20 Personally having used OPS/RAC for years...it is a technology designed=20 for two (or more) server side-by-side! my $.02 Chris Marquez Oracle DBA HEYMONitor(tm) - heymonitor.com "Oracle Monitoring & Alerting Solution" -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org on behalf of Paul Baumgartel Sent: Fri 1/21/2005 3:43 PM To: oracle-l@freelists.org Cc:=09 Subject: Re: intel clusters in a box I'm also about to start putting together a cluster for RAC on Oracle10g. What are the Amazons and eBays of the world using for hardware and OS? And if I may slip in a related question: the Tech. Services directory of our parent company is planning two new data centers, primary and secondary. There will be identical SANs at each (probably HP EVA arrays), connected via high-speed fiber. He is insistent that all data replication between sites take the form of synchronous SAN-to-SAN replication, in which writes at the primary site are not confirmed to the application until the data has traveled over the fiber and been written at the remote site as well. My question is this: Can RAC support such a model, and how? Let's say two RAC nodes at the primary site, and one at the secondary, all part of the same cluster. Can this configuration, can all nodes behave as though they are connected to the *same* physical array? Thanks in advance. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:14:36 -0500, Ray Stell wrote: >=20 > I've been building my own intel/linux clusters for testing. I'm > wondering if you have tested any commerical offerings for the whole 9 > yards; processers, FC, and storage. >=20 > http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_252.html >=20 > "More commonly, however, you hear that the expression comes from the > capacity of ready-mix concrete trucks. Concrete trucks supposedly > contain nine cubic yards when fully loaded." > = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > Ray Stell stellr@vt.edu (540) 231-4109 28^D > -- > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l