Scott Wrote :-
This software configuration is only supported on EMC 8XXX series towers
(firmware 5567.35.20 or higher) and the Hitachi HDS 9910 and
9960 series( firmware 01-16-40-00/00 or higher). It
also recommended you use JNI controllers. Your disk
drives will also have to support SCSI-3
Push the question about the requirement of RAW devices.. and ask if
Veritas's product can work without any restrictions.. The veritas clustered
file system is supposedly ok to use with RAC where you can take advantage
of using file systems. But I haven't seen confirmation of that. also-ask
about
Greg, For the most part RAW is still a requirement for
RAC. There are more Cluster File system Options now
then there where 6 months ago.
Windows/2000 - Oracle now provides a CFS. I believe
you can download it from OTN. I don't have NT
installed so I can't comment on its reliability or
Specifically ask about RAC's performance with respect to platform. I saw a
demo that HP put on at a WOUG meeting where the NT cluster took 20-30
seconds to fail over. While this isn't earth-shattering, there was mention
made that Unix/Linux failover times only took about 1-2 seconds. Might be
Glenn - I have a question you could ask. Oracle talks about how RAC will
allow Oracle to make better use of cheap computers. To me the weak point is
how much bandwidth you have between the nodes. If you have a gigabit fiber
optic connection between the nodes, it might work well, but suppose you
and a Ferrari. On the other hand, Neon or Focus probably do
have better gas mileage.
-Original Message-
From: DENNIS WILLIAMS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: RAC (Real Application Clusters
Yes, I concur. RAC might be positioned as a cluster of cheap Intel/Linux
servers
but a true cluster isn't really cheap.
On Compaq Tru64 Cluster, we are going for a Memory Channel Interconnect
which, I understand, is even more expensive than Gigabit.
hemant
At 07:43 AM 26-09-02 -0800, you
To which I would add... downtime and losing data can be very expensive so
given the alternative, if you need fault tolerance and scalability then
maybe it is cheap by comparison.
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:14 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Dennis,
True, a 2/3 node clusters ain't that cheap. But to achieve high
availability
the other choice is to buy a high end server like Sun E10k or the newer
ones. And I think the 2/3 node clusters are cheap compare to those big
iron boxes and you get a very good availability and scalability
. On the other hand, Neon or Focus probably do
have better gas mileage.
-Original Message-
From: DENNIS WILLIAMS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: RAC (Real Application Clusters)
Glenn - I have
: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: RAC (Real Application Clusters)
Glenn - I have a question you could ask. Oracle talks about
how RAC will
allow Oracle to make better use of cheap computers. To me the
weak point is
how much bandwidth
: Thursday, September 26, 2002 1:55 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: RAC (Real Application Clusters)
I have a ZX3 Focus (lady driven, low mileage, autumn red)
which I gladly exchange for a Ferrari (any colour) or
Aston-Martin (only racing green). Are you interested
: DENNIS WILLIAMS [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: RAC (Real Application Clusters)
Glenn - I have a question you could ask. Oracle talks about
how RAC will
allow Oracle to make better use of cheap
13 matches
Mail list logo
