Re: SCAN address
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 18:16:20 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2011.08.07.18.16.18_at_gmail.com>
On Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:38:26 +0000, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> First, RDBMS based http and OEM will not work without SCAN address on a
> RAC db. Second, with the requirement to put SCAN into DNS, DBA can no
> longer install RAC without any help, the person who maintains the DNS
> server, usually not DBA, will need to configure it.
>
> I am not aware that anybody was requesting SCAN address, it's a
> convenience, an endpoint for programmers to tie their services to, not
> something that would help the user. Making a mess of the installation
> and and making the SCAN address mandatory is infuriating, especially
> when having in mind that this is done so it's safer to use cheap
> Elbonian programmers. That is the reason for adding an additional level
> of complexity to otherwise already convoluted, buggy and complex RAC
> installation. In 10g, RAC installation became a form of black art. In
> 11g Oracle Corp. added more complexity to already convoluted and complex
> environment, with even less real documentation. The real question is
> whether this complexity has paid off? What did RAC 10g and RAC 11g
> provide that RAC 9i couldn't have provided? The answer is ASM. The real
> purpose of ASM is to block the competition. Competitors can and will use
> OCFS but competitors cannot use ASM. Thus the complexity. Now, we got
> SCAN address requirement, which is infuriating. I didn't even mention
> the idiotic multicast flop, which belongs to the same category.
I tried redirecting it with DBMS_XDB.SETLISTENERENDPOINT to VIP hostname, but to no avail. It still didn't register with the listener. My conclusion is that SCAN is being rammed down our throats. I will hack around it.
-- http://mgogala.byethost5.comReceived on Sun Aug 07 2011 - 13:16:20 CDT