From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Mon Jun 6 13:21:20 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j56ILKqA028112 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:21:20 -0500 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 j56ILKNi028106 for ; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:21:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 93B3D1BBD06; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:18:10 -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 24385-04; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:18:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 19D8D1BB96A; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 12:18:10 -0500 (EST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain Subject: RE: Oracle RAC cost justification? Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:15:51 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Oracle RAC cost justification? Thread-Index: AcVqOnNZbLOXZLc4TeCh1TUaFnb5VgAgIAp5AAAcC7M= From: "Marquez, Chris" To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 20699 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: cmarquez@collegeboard.org Precedence: normal Reply-To: cmarquez@collegeboard.org X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=2.63 >> The $ cost of RAC is so high ||Those two words are not miscible. Free with Oracle SE. >> I have not seen a clear-case for using it More Reasons for RAC; 1.) Logical User and Application Partitioning. 2.) (I always) Run Backups on a passive RAC instance. 3.) (Rolling) OS/Hardware/Firmware/Driver upgrades. These individually are probably not reasons, but these together plus; 4.) HA and 5.) potential scalability benefits start to make a stronger case. I have used 4 of these 5...*scalability*, the biggest (marketing) push by Oracle is the one the seems not often achieved. And as write this email we have had one RAC node/server down all morning and it gets several badly needed Firmware & Driver upgrades. Once complete we will "roll" to that node and do the same to the other node...*or* if it all fails, stay on the node with old versions...a very real RAC benefit. And I do agree with many of the downsides of RAC listed in the many post. Seems the RAC fails into the same as many Oracle (computing world) options... ...the are not as glamorous when you look under the hood. Chris Marquez Oracle DBA -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l