Why Existing Databases (RAC) are So Breakable
natishalom.typepad.com
natishalom.typepad.com
"The core, implicit assumption behind Oracle RAC, IBM DB2, and many other database clustering solutions, is that failure can be avoided by purchasing high-end disk storage and using expensive hardware (fiber optics, etc). As can be seen from the research I mentioned earlier, this core assumption doesn’t correlate with the failure statistics. Hence I argue that the database clustering model is inherently breakable."
Taking the fact that drives fail and extrapolating that to mean that large drive arrays are "inherently breakable" is nonsense. Using an EMC Symmetrix as an example I am very familiar with, a large properly implemented storage array is far from breakable. Inside that box you buy is a whole collection of n+2, n+3 and/or n+4 components all built specifically to never, ever break. The only problem with this type of solution is it is priced in the multi-millions. Each.
"Letting fear of conventional storage drive the creation of 'solutions' that are just as complex without the benefits of being as general, as well tested, or as well documented is a mistake. (Open but undocumented and untested can be worse than closed, BTW, if the cost of reverse-engineering and fixing the implementation is greater than the cost of licensing would have been.) Such attempts generally lose even when considered alone, and even more so when the effects of fragmentation and incompatibility are considered."
In the case of RAC, although state is written to a file called 'voting disk', the actual state of the cluster is communicated through a high speed inter connect which is redundant. Only if the network connection(s) are down, state is exchanged through the 'voting disk'.
This article also does not really reflect what is commonly done with SAN implementations.