Re: Multiple DATABASES on the same RAC cluster

"Mark J. Kounalis" <mkounal_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vc8911kcu91h6c_at_corp.supernews.com...
> Hello everyone:
>
> I got asked this question from a client the other day and I am having a
hard
> time finding out a good answer to relay to them. They want to know wether
> or not they can implement two or more RAC clustered databases on the same
> hardware running at the same time.

Yes they can. Is it a good idea to do so? Doubt it.

>They would like to consolidate their
> databases onto one computer cluster and they have limitations by some of
> their software vendors which dictate the exact version and patch level
they
> can run to be supported. Additionally they have in-house stuff that they
> might want to run on a newer version or with a more recent patch set. I
> have personally never tried this and am trying to put together some
machines
> to try this - but I thought that maybee someout out there might have tried
> this already. They are planning on running on Redhat's 2.1AS Linux
> operating system on two to three dual 2.4ghz Xeon HP/Compaq machines. I
am
> fairly sure that sharing the interconnect (which is really just a private
> network) would be ok

It had better be a good interconnect! I wouldn't have such faith in it, if I were you!!

>- but I have no idea about the dependancies of the OSD
> stuff if they want to in fact run different versions of the database in
RAC
> mode on the same hardware. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> Thanks!

Because you mention RAC, you are presumably suggesting running 9iR1 and 9iR2, and potentially at different patch levels within a given version? Given that a Cluster File System for Linux was only released lately, I doubt that 9iR1 would know what on earth to do with it. So I suspect you'd have to go raw for all versions... which is a royal pain in the butt. But so long as R1 is clustered with R1 and R2 with R2, then I don't see any fundamental problems.

But I could be wrong

Regards
HJR Received on Thu May 15 2003 - 19:10:44 CDT