<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Crackpot Ideas &#187; Databases</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.crackpotideas.com/category/databases/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.crackpotideas.com</link>
	<description>Enterprise IT, Technology, and other Random Musings</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 23:01:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>VMWare HA is not Oracle RAC</title>
		<link>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/05/vmware-ha-is-not-oracle-rac/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/05/vmware-ha-is-not-oracle-rac/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 23:01:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mzito</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Databases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Servers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oracle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vmware]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.crackpotideas.com/?p=72</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This originally started out as a much longer rant about EMC/VMWare vs. Oracle in general, but WordPress managed to eat the draft, and there&#8217;s no way I&#8217;m going to rewrite the whole thing, so I&#8217;m going to instead write a series of blog posts, each one covering a point in EMC&#8217;s recent salvo against Oracle [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/05/vmware-ha-is-not-oracle-rac/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Using OCFS2 the right way</title>
		<link>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/02/using-ocfs2-the-right-way/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/02/using-ocfs2-the-right-way/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:05:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mzito</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Databases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux/UNIX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clusters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocfs2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oracle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[san]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Storage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.crackpotideas.com/?p=55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After responding to Jeremy&#8217;s message on Oracle-L, it got me reading his blog.  On one post, he asks if OCFS2 has a future given the rumored introduction of &#8220;ASMfs&#8220;, and if it&#8217;s worth considering for various purposes, specifically:
&#8221;

database binaries (vs local files or NFS)
diag top (11g) or admin tree (10g) (vs local files or NFS)
archived [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/02/using-ocfs2-the-right-way/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why OS Packages and Databases Don&#8217;t Mix</title>
		<link>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/02/why-os-packages-and-databases-dont-mix/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/02/why-os-packages-and-databases-dont-mix/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mzito</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Databases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Linux/UNIX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clusters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linux]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oracle]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.crackpotideas.com/?p=52</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There was an interesting post to the Oracle-L mailing list today about using OS packages in cluster database environments.   A quick snippet from the post:
&#8220;We typically repackage database binaries as RPMs for wide-scale deployment. Most of the clusters we have currently utilize a CFS. Support scripts are installed onto the CFS with a tarball and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.crackpotideas.com/2009/02/why-os-packages-and-databases-dont-mix/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
