To be truly contrary to anyone else :) here are some thoughts we've been
trying to think recently here at Miracle regarding clusters and OPS/RAC from
Oracle:
There can be three main reasons for using clusters (I think):
- High availability. But how often does a Unix or Windows2000 server
On Sunday 20 January 2002 06:45, Mogens Nørgaard wrote:
Here's something else I've been wondering about: If the rather smart
folks at the various Unix vendors (they're hardly any stupider than us
on this list, do you think?) cannot get this stuff to work after having
tried for many years -
I would not say any vendor. I have yet to have an issue with HP and
failover.
Its worked every time and is relatively easy to setup and use.
I have no experience with any other vendor in that area though.
-Original Message-
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:35 PM
To: Multiple recipients
)
Subject: RE: Standby Instance questions and HA
Hi,
thanks for you advice.
Let me see if I've got it straight...
So what you are using is purely OS based.
No special Oracle software.
There is only one node available at a time, and if it fails, then the second
one starts up, in roughly the same state as the first (i.e. no uncommitted
Hi, thanks for your advice.
Data Guard is available for 8i as well I think. I will have to look into
what exactly it does,
Jim
-Original Message-
Sent: 17 January 2002 18:51
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I also heard of horror stories regarding Sun Clusters. I worked w/
When I failover, I bring the Oracle Home as well. Do you have special reasons for not
bringing the Oracle Home over?
*just curious*
Gene
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/17/02 08:45PM
You will always have the same issues with fail over technology. Your users
will get disconnected. My databases
Ah but with 9i, RAC and TAF you can have the users reconnected
automagically and they will resume their transactions inflight.
--- Kimberly Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You will always have the same issues with fail over technology. Your
users
will get disconnected. My databases take less
I have way to many f'ing Oracle Homes to deal with. When I first got here
they were all different versions as well. So it was more of a maintenance
thing. To tell you the truth someone else originally set it up that way and
I liked it so I kept it. It does mean I have to keep more in sync
True but I doubt they will approve the downtime for the upgrade now:-)
-Original Message-
Carmichael
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:31 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Ah but with 9i, RAC and TAF you can have the users reconnected
automagically and they will resume their
Speaking of TAF,
Does anyone know (or have tested/implemented/explored) TAF with Forms
application? Does this work??
We have another JAVA application that connects using JDBC and looks for
certain errors and whenever it detects an error (appropriate one), it
reconnects to the other side. Both
Nah, I make sure all servers have the same uid/gid for oracle but I have naming
standards for the lv's and filesystems. This allows me to failover multiple primary
servers to a single secondary. I was just curious, b/c I have seen other sites that
use your method. I prefer not having to
I've seen a similar idea running on Silicon Graphics kit :
2 servers;
heartbeat check between them;
Drives mount on the other box when the 'live' system fails
It was nice when it worked...Testing the failover caused barely a ripple,
although it did disconnect any open sessions.
It does reduce your maintenance windows though when you are upgrading.
Really nice when you are a 24x7 shop. I do not have to have a database down
when upgrading the software. I will actually run catalog and catproc with
the database open for business and have not had an issue yet. So I do one
What you are describing sounds like Oracle FailSafe. It is free from
Oracle, does not require Oracle Enterprise version (Standard/workgroup can
be used), only runs on NT, and requires MicroSoft Cluster Services (MSCS)
which is included in NT4.0 EE or W2K Advanced Server.
As for Sun Solaris, I
I think your right. But does anyone know what is use on Solaris?
Thanks,
Jim
-Original Message-
Sent: 17 January 2002 15:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What you are describing sounds like Oracle FailSafe. It is free from
Oracle, does not require Oracle Enterprise
Check the Sun web site. Sun has clustering. I do not know the name
of the product off the top of my head since I use HP MC/ServiceGuard.
-Original Message-
McCann
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 7:06 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I think your right. But does anyone
Full Moon.
(it's going through stages, waxing. give me a break.)
Supposedly they named it that because wolves howl at
the moon. Get it? Wolfpack is microsoft's clustering
moniker. Give me another break. Doesn't Scott McNealy
have a jacuzzi at home he can spend time in?)
-Original
Veritas also has a product that will do this for you...
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:46 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Check the Sun web site. Sun has clustering. I do not know the name
of the product off the top of my head since I use HP
I concur with BB.yea, I ran Sun cluster at deleted and
it broke ALOT.
Kept me and two full time Sun Engineers (they got paid ALOT more)
in consulting dollars, but i made a mental note not to use
it in my business.
Caveat: this was 1.5 years ago. Things change.
Mit Gluck, mein
We have this in place on Sun as well. It is similar to a cluster in that it
has a separate box (Ultra 2) monitoring a heartbeat between both database
servers. You will have a significant impact during failover. All drives
common to both boxes will be unmounted on the primary and remounted on
It's not an Oracle thing, so there wouldn't be anything in the docs
yes, you need a clustered environment, or at the least the ability for
the disks to be mounted on the second server when the first one goes
down.
As long as the disk that oracle has been installed on is one of the
ones that
Thanks for the advice everyone.
So what do you recommend on a Sun cluster/machines for failover other than
OPS?
Quest Shareplex?
Standby database?
Any others?
Thanks,
Jim
-Original Message-
Sent: 17 January 2002 16:22
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I concur with
we had it with FirstWatch from Veritas on top -- sometimes disks didn't
get dismounted from the first server, or remounted on the second one..
then we had database failures
--- Baker, Barbara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim:
Sorry, you're not gonna like this answer. HA is a Sun product, not
IBM HACMP works well.
Ooops. guess that means you'll have to change some things. ;-)
Seriously, we *did* get the Sun clustering working, but it
required some serious feet-to-fire holding and gyrations.
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 11:54 AM
To: Multiple
I also heard of horror stories regarding Sun Clusters. I worked w/ HP MC Service
guard, good product. Now working w/ IBM HACMP, also good product, although more
complicated to set up (but then again I am not a IBM'er). IBM tends to do everything
their way ;).
In the future when I upgrade
I recommend HP. But that does not run on Sun to well:-)
-Original Message-
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 9:12 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
IBM HACMP works well.
Ooops. guess that means you'll have to change some things. ;-)
Seriously, we *did* get the Sun
You will always have the same issues with fail over technology. Your users
will get disconnected. My databases take less then 5 minutes to fail over
and that is an acceptable time frame to the client. Its great from my
standpoint
for maintenance cause I can do it on one node, fail the
28 matches
Mail list logo
