Can anyone recommend HW for running Oracle under Windows NT in a redundant
configuration? We are currently running in backup mode using transaction
logs, but would like to switch to a scheme that wouldn't require downtime to
switch over.

Is there someplace better to post this?

Thanks.

"Code Monkee" <monkee@monkeebusiness.com> wrote in message
news9GdnU0l099RAiXfRVn-3Q@giganews.com...
> Can anyone recommend HW for running Oracle under Windows NT in a redundant
> configuration? We are currently running in backup mode using transaction
> logs, but would like to switch to a scheme that wouldn't require downtime
> to
> switch over.
>
> Is there someplace better to post this?
>
> Thanks.
>
>

always downtime for switchovers

On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:16:26 -0500, Code Monkee interested us by writing:

> Can anyone recommend HW for running Oracle under Windows NT in a redundant
> configuration? We are currently running in backup mode using transaction
> logs, but would like to switch to a scheme that wouldn't require downtime to
> switch over.

By definition, switch over includes some down time.

If you can not tolerate the switchover downtime, there must be some
reason - turn that reason into $/minute and you have a business case to
purchase Oracle RAC (if Oracle Database 10g Standard Edition, with it's
included, free-of-charge, RAC is not good enough.)

Then base your hardware on the RAC config.

>
> Is there someplace better to post this?
>

This is OK. cdo.server would be a bit better.

--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
*** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries ***

"HansF" <News.Hans@telus.net> wrote in message
newsan.2005.06.22.00.03.19.485147@telus.net...
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 18:16:26 -0500, Code Monkee interested us by writing:
>
>> Can anyone recommend HW for running Oracle under Windows NT in a
>> redundant
>> configuration? We are currently running in backup mode using transaction
>> logs, but would like to switch to a scheme that wouldn't require downtime
>> to
>> switch over.
>
> By definition, switch over includes some down time.
>
> If you can not tolerate the switchover downtime, there must be some
> reason - turn that reason into $/minute and you have a business case to
> purchase Oracle RAC (if Oracle Database 10g Standard Edition, with it's
> included, free-of-charge, RAC is not good enough.)
>
> Then base your hardware on the RAC config.
>
>>
>> Is there someplace better to post this?
>>
>
> This is OK. cdo.server would be a bit better.
>
> --
> Hans Forbrich
> Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
> mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
> *** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries ***

Euh ? This IS cdo.server ;-)

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:09:19 +0200, Matthias Hoys interested us by
writing:

>>
>> This is OK. cdo.server would be a bit better.
>>
>> --
> Euh ? This IS cdo.server ;-)

You are right. I had cdo.misc open when I responded. Looked at the tree
in Pan instead of the reply newsgroup. C'est la vie.

--
Hans Forbrich
Canada-wide Oracle training and consulting
mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com
*** I no longer assist with top-posted newsgroup queries ***