Re: New architecture using Clusterware

I managed an identical situation dismantling old Solaris with SunOS 9 + VCS + Oracle 10gR2 and moving to Linux+ASM. I agree with cost effective, this is clear, but about the stability and manageability of system I am still perplexed. What I can say is - ASM is stable but we've found dozens of bugs, some with patch, some without, some where oracle is still trying to understand - Support sucks. No other word here, everytime you mention ASM and CLUSTER they answer RAC. Seriously seems that nobody in the world run standard active/passive cluster architecture - Cluster configuration: is not really clear how you should proceed for configuration. I mean: ASM have to be compiled with 'rac on' of 'rac off'? Resources should move with srvctl standard configuration or custom scripts? etc.

I probably have other interesting things I do not remember in this moment, but ift's a good discussion theme. Thank you for starting this thread, hope to read other interesting experience.

Ste

On 15 January 2013 22:28, Dennis Williams <oracledba.williams_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> List,
> Traditionally we've supported databases with Solaris servers using VCS.
> These are medium-sized databases with average availability requirements.
> Nothing leading-edge.
> We are considering a new cluster of servers. I'm wondering if Linux and
> Oracle Clusterware (but not RAC) is a cost-effective solution that would
> provide adequate availability. Has anyone on this list taken that approach?
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis Williams
>
>
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>

-- 
http://www.stefanocislaghi.eu

The SQLServerAgent service depends on the MSSQLServer service, which
has failed due to the following error: The operation completed
successfully.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l