nanog mailing list archives
Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 23:59:12 +0700
On Jun 3, 2009, at 11:15 PM, gb10hkzo-nanog () yahoo co uk wrote:
For example, consider the licensing and hardware costs involved in running something like Oracle Database in active/active mode (in a topology that is supported by Oracle Tech Support).
In my experience, it's no more expensive in terms of hardware/software licensing costs to run active/active, and actually less in terms of opex costs due to issues raised previously in this thread, as well as a host of others.
Note that running active/active doesn't necessarily mean doing something like running a clustered database back-end, utilizing vendor- specific HA solutions. It can be done via a combination of caching, sharding, distributed indexing, et. al. - i.e., via application structuring and logic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins () arbor net> // <http://www.arbornetworks.com> Unfortunately, inefficiency scales really well. -- Kevin Lawton
Current thread:
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity, (continued)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity William Herrin (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity gb10hkzo-nanog (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity William Herrin (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Seth Mattinen (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)
- Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity Roland Dobbins (Jun 03)