Re: HA without a cluster

dba wrote:

> I have to deploy a new system that has some level of HA (not even
> three nines though) - on Sun, and I dont want all the complications
> and expense of sun cluster. I would like two low end dual CPU sun
> boxes, each attached to an small external storage array (50GB?), one
> running apps, one running Oracle, and the ability to mount the
> respective filesystems to either node in the event of a hardware
> failure. Should be simple - its HA for cheap. I dont have money for
> SAN/NAS hardware.
> NFS mounting will probably be too slow, so does that mean I need a
> dual-attach array? If so is it as simple as connecting both servers,
> and managing which node is mounting which filesystems?
>
> Anyone made a cheapie cluster?
>
> Thanks!
> Mark

What's your budget? You should be able to achieve 999 with nothing more than RAID 0+1 and a back-up power source. But you are correct about SunCluster ... the pricing is out of contact with reality? Why would anyone buy it when they could cluster with Oracle for a fraction of the cost?

Only if you want to get higher than 999 would you need RAC in which case get two Dell or HP boxes (2 CPU x 4GB), install RedHat EL AS 3.0, and you will have saved enough money to buy a NetApp NAS which will work just fine for what you are doing.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)