On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 10:42:51 -0700, John Hurley wrote:

Well, I guess you could also add an additional RAC node to your dedicated
servers?

Not really. You need to have a buzzword.


I thought they were buying Microsoft?


--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

Mladen:

# Well, I guess you could also add an additional RAC node to your
dedicated servers?

Ummm ... not if you are NOT running RAC?

Still a believer that for many configurations and setups you probably
don't need RAC.

Wish someone would write something about that subject! Oh wait a
minute ...

Mladen:

# Times, however, are changing and I am considering writing an
article named "you probably do need RAC, although you might not
realize that".

Dang looks like you are sipping from the koolaid! ( Kidding
mostly! ) ///

# Namely in case of web supporting databases, 99.9% uptime requirement
is almost always mandatory. And that means RAC.....

Some people engineer ways to "go offline" periodically and temporarily
disconnect while keeping web applications working. Queue stuff up
somehow/somewhere and process it asynch after the database is back.

I would argue or at least assert that working to keep some kind of
reasonable periodic maintenance windows ( aka allowable downtime ) is
a desirable place to get to.

Remember a key concept of Moans Nogood is that typically when you
drink the koolaid of RAC for 99.9 you usually end up with 99.5 or
98.2. Complications, troubleshooting skills, bugs, maintenance
windows ... it never ends in the RAC world.

Maybe 10 years from now the rolling upgrades and patching stuff will
be there. It is getting there now ... but getting there is a long
ways from actually being there now and deployable and maintainable by
everyone.

Just yanking your chain mostly!

John Hurley wrote,on my timestamp of 26/09/2011 3:42 AM:
I'm talking about storage capacity and bandwidth?


Yup. In total, we use a lot more than that for Oracle and Oracle is only 10% of
our database storage. And we are by no means large.


Now, THAT would be news! :-)

John Hurley wrote,on my timestamp of 26/09/2011 10:54 AM:

The thing that needs to be established is the difference - or rather:
similarities - between HA and DR.

I'd rather have a DR site that I can push into main operation, while patching
the main site. For that, I need Dataguard/GG. Not RAC. And that gives me DR
as well - something RAC doesn't.



Now,now! Too much reality here! Enough frivolity, please!




I was at Roland Slee's introduction of 9i in Australia, when it was presented as
"mostly for RAC". I asked him, very clearly: "does RAC let me upgrade each node
concurrently and without having to shutdown?".
Note that this was the first release of 9i!
Without batting an eyelid, he said: "yes, of course! It works perfectly! That is
the whole purpose of RAC!"

Yup! Sure...
Any wonder why I don't believe ANYTHING they say until I see proof in real
installed sites?



Nothing wrong with that. It might actually make someone at Oracle open their eyes?