Extended RAC vs Golden Gate

 Every so often this question comes up... "Why don't we do extended RAC ?"

 

 

Well here is some of my answer as to what we need to consider.

 

First, Extended RAC is setting up a RAC cluster across datacenters.. Each datacenter has it's own independent Storage arrays. Some Nodes are placed on one datacenter (a) and some are placed in (b). To keep it simple and for redundancy, lets say there is 2 nodes in each datacenter (4 total). These 4 nodes are all part of the same cluster, and they all share the same Global cache. Disk writes are mirrored across datacenters. This means that all writes are synchronous, and the write must be acknowledged on both arrays (in both datacenters).. Dark fiber is a must to accomplish this.

  

Issues ? There are number of concerns this brings up.

 

 

1) The global cache is shared across the datacenters. Any latency is felt by any processing that requires sharing data between clusters in opposite datacenters. This can cause some performance degradation.

 

2) Writes are synchronous across datacenters. This can increase the write time for any disk writes.

 

3) You are not protected against logical corruption, upgrade outages etc.

 

Best practice is to also have a physical standby for HA, and to allow patching etc (transient logical), etc.

 

 

In the end you end up with twice as much equipment, twice as much storage, and a lot more complex system over just keeping a physical standby database. It is even recommended that your quorum is kept in a third datacenter.

 

The cost doubles, and the complexity doubles. The question you need to ask is.. is it worth all this ?

 

Another option is to utilize Golden Gate. Golden gate gives you similar flexibility by going active-active across datacenters. You still need to have a physical standby, but the advantage of GG over Extended RAC is that the physical does not have to be the same class server or storage ($$). The whole point of the physical is to keep the changes so that they can be sent to the other active cluster.. The standby cluster never becomes a a client available primary.

 

 

I would summerize the 2 choices as follows

 

 

Extended RAC

 

PROS

• Guaranteed synchronous write across datacenters.

 CONS

 

• Less availability for any database changes requiring shutdown (parameter or patching).
• Greater latency when data is sent between datacenters.
• BCP requires full size footprint

 

Golden Gate

 

 

PROS

•  Database available for any database changes requiring downtime.
•  Application releases can be applied in a rolling fasion
•  Smaller footprint for BCP servers
•  Less lattency for reads and commits (though latency for data availabilty)

 

CONS

 

• Database updates are asynchronous. There will be a delay before update is visible in other datacenter (< 2 seconds)

 

 

Neithor one of these will guarantee 99.999% uptime, but GG comes a lot closer. With extended RAC, there is more planned downtime because it is a single database.
As you can see the decision should be driven by how important it is for the application to be able to have the data immediately available for read across datacenters. If you can tolerate the < 2 second latency, GG is a better product. If the application can't tolerate the latency Extended RAC is only viable solution.