[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 02:28:26AM -0500, James Cammarata wrote:
>> At 06:00 AM 6/16/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
>> >obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
>>
>> I assume you want t
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 02:28:26AM -0500, James Cammarata wrote:
> At 06:00 AM 6/16/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
> >obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
>
> I assume you want to do a redundant DB correct?
At 06:00 AM 6/16/2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
I assume you want to do a redundant DB correct? Databases are not suited
to this kind of failover, due to the lack of consist
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 11:55:37AM +0200, Marin Vidakovic wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
> > obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
>
> Can you be more specific? Are you talking about 2 oracle rdbms +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
I think for database failover, you'd better use the DB own features.
For example, a quick google grep gave me that:
If you have multiple addresses, yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
> obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
Can you be more specific? Are you talking about 2 oracle rdbms + 2
openbsd fw or just 1 oracle rdbms behind 2 or more openbsd fw?
Does anybody protect any oracle rdbms (sqlnet protocol) using
obsd 3.5 + carp + pfsync ? Does it work ? Is it problematic ?
