Dear ladies and gentlemen,

We are evaluating the possebilities to introduce a 4 node Oracle RAC
environment as our new database platform. The OS of the RAC nodes will
be installed on the local server. All other data will be placed on the
SAN. For redundancy purposes each node will have two FC interfaces to
the SAN. Is it correct that for example RH Linux (on a HP DL 585) can
only use these FC interfaces in a failover configuration while Sun
Solaris is able to bundle these two interface to increase I/O?

I look forward to reading your comments.

With best regards,

Fred

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

What you're referring to is an ACTIVE/PASSIVE configuration vs. an
ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration.  This configuration is independent of the o/s
and depends on your storage vendor.  If your
storage vendor supports ACTIVE/ACTIVE (EMC, HP, IBM, etc) then you will be
able to load balance across all possible paths to your storage.  This
functionality will be handled by the host failover software provided to you
by these vendors (Powerpath, SecurePath, ...)

The Moojit

<fredje110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149922961.021146.28470@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear ladies and gentlemen,
>
> We are evaluating the possebilities to introduce a 4 node Oracle RAC
> environment as our new database platform. The OS of the RAC nodes will
> be installed on the local server. All other data will be placed on the
> SAN. For redundancy purposes each node will have two FC interfaces to
> the SAN. Is it correct that for example RH Linux (on a HP DL 585) can
> only use these FC interfaces in a failover configuration while Sun
> Solaris is able to bundle these two interface to increase I/O?
>
> I look forward to reading your comments.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Fred
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Dear Moojit,

Thank you very much for your clear answer.

With kind regards,

Fred


"Moojit" <moojit@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4HAig.23748$0v4.8592@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> What you're referring to is an ACTIVE/PASSIVE configuration vs. an
> ACTIVE/ACTIVE configuration.  This configuration is independent of the o/s
> and depends on your storage vendor.  If your
> storage vendor supports ACTIVE/ACTIVE (EMC, HP, IBM, etc) then you will be
> able to load balance across all possible paths to your storage.  This
> functionality will be handled by the host failover software provided to
you
> by these vendors (Powerpath, SecurePath, ...)
>
> The Moojit
>
> <fredje110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1149922961.021146.28470@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... 
>
>

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

fredje110@hotmail.com wrote:

> We are evaluating the possebilities to introduce a 4 node Oracle RAC
> environment as our new database platform. The OS of the RAC nodes will
> be installed on the local server. All other data will be placed on the
> SAN. For redundancy purposes each node will have two FC interfaces to
> the SAN.

"the SAN" is not specific enough since there are many options depending
on which storage platform you have.

> Is it correct that for example RH Linux (on a HP DL 585) can
> only use these FC interfaces in a failover configuration while Sun
> Solaris is able to bundle these two interface to increase I/O?

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 dm-multipath will load-balance across
multiple HBAs.  Depending on your storage platform, you probably have
other options available too.

../Ed

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]