Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr2000_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:Q5Uwa.35079$1s1.509184_at_newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >
> > "Connor McDonald" <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > I'm pretty sure that as long as CFS is at the 'front' of the spare disk
> > > you're OK. In may case its currently the whole 120G second drive, but
> > > I'm pretty sure I started with just a 10G CFS, with the remaining 110G
> > > used under standard NTFS (but not for the rac obviosuly)
> >
> > Well, I tried that to destruction, with a free disk partition at the
> front,
> > middle and end of a disk, and it made not the slightest difference, which
> is
> > why (regarding your other post) 'spare disk space' doesn't equal 'spare
> > disk'.
> >
> > If you really managed to pull off a 'spare disk space' install, I'd love
> to
> > know how you did it... 'cos in three months of trying, I never did.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
>
> Correction: it's just occured to me that if you were to install RAC with the
> 120G hard drive completely empty, but having partitioned off a 10G partition
> first, then it might work (another test looms). IE, 1 10G unformatted
> logical volume, and 110G of totally nothing. With RAC up-and-running, then
> you could create a new partition on the 110G part of the drive and use it
> for anything you like.
>
> What you really can't do (I think!) is chop the drive into a 10G logical
> volume and a 110G NTFS (or anything else) partition, and then hope to
> install RAC.
>
> The order of events is important, I guess.
>
> Is that what you did?
>
> Regards
> HJR
Can't remember but that is the most probable order of events I did.
cheers
connor
--
=========================
Connor McDonald
http://www.oracledba.co.uk
"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue"
Received on Thu May 15 2003 - 20:48:01 CDT
