Re: Can I Have a 9i RAC and a 9i non-RAC Instance on Same Machine?

In article <498db9a0.0204260440.616bfdba_at_posting.google.com>, rspeaker_at_yahoo.com says...
>
>I have 2 IBM P680 servers, clustered. Is it possible to have 1 RAC/OPS
>instance
>and 1 non-RAC/non-OPS instance on each server, running at the same
>time,
>assuming I have sufficient CPU & memory resources, and separate the
>I/O
>correctly? Are there any limitations in 8i / 9i / OPS / RAC that would
>prevent
>this?
>I would like to have Server A (instance A) and Server B (instance A)
>in a RAC
>or OPS configuration, and Server A (instance B) and Server B (instance
>B) in a
>non-RAC / non-OPS configuration, but running SharePlex / Replication.
>Is this possible, and if so, is it supported by Oracle?
>
>Thanks.
>Roy Speaker
>rspeaker_at_yahoo.com

Well you have a couple of different combinations here. Let me outline each one that is supported:

1. both OPS and non-OPS
2. both RAC and non-RAC
3. OPS and non-RAC
4. non-OPS and RAC

Proviso for all of these is that OPS/RAC is supported on the cluster you're talking about. Only concern would be the resources of the machines are sufficient.

Now add replication into the picture. Replication from Oracle is supported in all 4 cases. I'm assuming here you're going to replication to another machine that is not in the cluster - don't laugh at me making this explicit. I had one client that has set up replication from one node of the cluster to another node becasue they hadn't heard of OPS (this was in the 7.3 days). You may want to ensure the replication is done from the correct node to minimize pinging.

Two final points. I believe (though I'm not 100% sure) that Oracle does NOT support Shareplex because it uses log mining without using Oracle's LogMiner. Second one - if you have the choice, don't even bother with OPS. RAC is a lot easier to get scalability out of. It's possible to make OPS scale, but in some cases it can be quite difficult.

HTH. Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete

SELECT standard_disclaimer, witty_remark FROM company_requirements; Received on Fri Apr 26 2002 - 09:37:12 CDT