Jesus Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 09:36:42AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Michael Mraka wrote:
That's crucial question. It looks like nobody here knows ;). According
to Mirek's investigation it's rudiment from old good hosted ages and it
has never been utilized by satellite.
AFAIK hosted never had monitoring enabled. So this is merely from
NOCpulse time, before we buy that company.
Why wouldn't we want to have a highly clustered environment with
several databases?
Well we can. And it is perfectly valid scenarion. But this part of
code/tables assume that each that db has different data.
Something like - one application server and different database for
different environments. And no other part of our code support this.
Under the do no harm to Satellite motto for changing/cleaning up
Spacewalk - I do know that some customers use Oracle RAQ environments
for external databases. Does this proposed code change break them,
or make it easier to use or no difference either way?
Even with those tables removed will be possible to have database stored
in cluster of db.
I will repeat myself - what will not be possible is: to have spacewalk
connected to several db, each with different content.
In ascii art:
[ Spacewalk ] _____ [ DB-1 - prod content ]
|____ [ DB-2 - stage content ]
|____ [ DB-3 - test content ]
AFAIK we never test, try or encourage to do such setup. And no one but
monitoring is able to have such setup.
I can't imagine how this table(s) can affect Oracle RAC. So - no difference.
No difference. You can still have this scenario:
[ Spacewalk ] _____ [ DB-1 - instance 1 ]
|____ [ DB-1 - instance 2 ]
|____ [ DB-1 - instance 3 ]
Ok I'm good with this change then :)
+1 me too - thanks for clarification.
Cliff
_______________________________________________
Spacewalk-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-devel
