Re: Veritas Cluster vs Oracle RAC for HA

On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 16:46:41 +1000, Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> 1. No RAC. Use hardware clustering features to start a second instance
> when the first fails. This is Microsoft's (and the Failsafe) solution, for
> example.

Yes it is, but I don't like that solution, because one must have unused HW capacity for this to work properly.

> 2. RAC, but only one active instance. The second instance should mean
> failover happens faster, and gives you a constantly-ready administrative
> instance. Nothing needs starting up from scratch. Sometimes called
> 'active-passive' RAC.

I have 5+ years of experience with RAC/OPS and have never seen a configuration like thus. I'm not sure what would be the point of that?

> 3. RAC, with 'co-equal' instances. This is the one to which your
> constitutional quote makes allusion. It's the one everyone thinks of as
> RAC. Sometimes known as active-active RAC, it allows for load balancing as
> well as speedy failover, as well as parallel processing across nodes, and
> hence scale-up and speed-up.

Yes. That is the one I was talking about. Again, I've learned something from you. Your sense of humor is just fine.

-- 
A city is a large community where people are lonesome together.