Re: 10g with HACMP (no RAC)?

From: Palooka <nobody_at_nowhere.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:19:11 +0100
Message-ID: <HMfxk.172606$le1.70366@newsfe11.ams2>

Uwe Weber wrote:
> sybrandb_at_hccnet.nl wrote:
>

>> Obviously, not using RAC, you won't have any load balancing and
>> transparent application failover.
>> You also don't have the option of cross instance recovery (instance 2
>> helps instance 1 in recovery).

>
> Of course not. Everything I know about Oracle on HACMP is from an
> environment where they introduced HACMP back in ORA 7 days and slowly
> started to migrate to RAC during their migration to 10g.

>> Consequently I don't understand why you see this as a viable solution.

>
> Where did I say that? But if the OP ist stuck with this anyway, I might as
> well give him some info about it. I am not into RAC sales.
>

And again, thank you. Besides which, there are actually some reasons not to go with RAC. Firstly, the application vendor doesn't actually support it. Secondly, even if we had a database which was capable of transparent failover, it wouldn't necessarily prevent loss of service; if the application itself went down, it would have to fail over to its other active/passive HACMP node. Plus there are two other layers.

The application, in business terms, is only as strong as its weakest link. And some of us live in the real world, rather than in ivory towers.

Danke, mein freund.

Palooka Received on Mon Sep 08 2008 - 15:19:11 CDT