Can multiple Macs access the same firewire volume simultaneously?

I have a firewire drive and hub, and two Mac Minis. I would like to use this hardware to build an Oracle 10g Real Application Cluster (RAC). To do this, both Macs would have to be able to read/write blocks on the same volume on the firewire drive (Oracle prevents collisions). Newer Linux kernels have support for doing this. It seems that the Mac OS X Server 10.3.4 that I am using blocks at the volume level by node. It would seem to preclude my using this hardware unless I devote another machine to being an NFS server for the shared storage. I'm looking for possible kernel tricks to get this to work.
Jeremiah
Mac Mini Mac OS X (10.3.4)

According to Oracle's white paper on RAC:
The type of disk storage used can be network attached storage (NAS), storage area network (SAN), or SCSI disk.
It does go on to say:
Alternatively Oracle supports the use of raw devices and some cluster file systems such as Oracle Cluster File System (OCFS) which is available on Windows, Linux and Solaris
I suppose if Oracle is taking over the raw device, support might be possible, but OCFS is not available for Mac OS X.

Similar Messages

Can i back up multiple macs to the same hard drive

can i back up multiple macs to the same hard drive

Yes, you simply share the drive to the network.. in whatever way that is possible as you have given us no info.. over the network TM will create sparsebundles.. locally it can produce a straight backup ..
http://code.stephenmorley.org/articles/time-machine-on-a-network-drive/

Can two users access the same bootcamp (win os) instance?

We are two users who are using our imac and we both have own user names in mac os. I created a bootcamp partition with windows xp on it. Can both users access the same partition and create their own user spaces within xp?
Will that work also if we use Parallel or virtual box? (access the same user data as in boot camp?)
I would like to have the option for each user to access their windows data either through bootcamp or through the virtual tool.
Message was edited by: gss2
Message was edited by: gss2

gss2 wrote:
What do you mean Virtual box it will not run on its own partition? I have a virtual box running on my desktop and it runs just fine ...own partition?? I don't understand.
Running on its own partition means that the installed OS has its own formatted portion (partition) of the hard drive. A virtual machine does not have its own partition. It creates a virtual partition (a file on the computer) that simulates a file system (partition). So Virtual Box, or any other virtualization software, does not run Windows, or any other OS in its own partition.

HT204053 Can multiple people use the same Apple ID for their own devices?

Can multiple people use the same Apple ID for their own devices? I just set up my IPhone 4S (first time user) using the same Apple ID as my daughters and now we receive each others texts, do I need to set up my own Apple ID account?

Yes, you can. In fact it's recommended that you use different IDs for iMessage, FaceTime and iCloud. You can still share the same ID for iTunes without any issues.
You are getting each other's text messages because you're using the same ID for iMessage. To fix this, one of you should go to Settings>Messages>Send & Receive, tap the ID, sign out, then sign in with a different ID. To avoid getting each other's FaceTime calls, do the same thing in Settings>FaceTime.

Why can one mac access the internet and not the other?

Hi I have just installed a 2nd generation Airport Express base station. I have setup a network and I can connect to it to access the web. Here's the rub, only my Macbook Pro can connect. My Macbook Air cannot connect? A weird error message says (translated from Swedish): Airport has the selfapplied/selfselected IP adress 169.254.67.130 and will not be able to connect to the internet.
Why can one mac access the internet and not the other? Is there something simple that I can do to get more macs to be able to use my Airport Express to access the internet?
Tech details:
Airport Express 2nd generation (just purchased) model 1392
Macbook Pro running 10.8.2
MacBook Air running 10.6.8

It seems the Airbook assigns a dummy IP address so somehow it doesn't reach and receive an IP from the Express. I deleted the previous Express setting restarted the Air connected again, restarted the modem, restarted the Express nothing....
I spoke to the internet provider and the cable modem does not require any username or pw. from the modem to the cable it's one public ip, pure internet is flowing from the modem to the Express but the express doesn't seem to assign any IP address apart from the one assigned to the Macbook Pro.
Do you need a screendump of the settings on the functioning Mac or the faulty one? What settings are you interested in i.e. which tab should it shot?

Can multiple computers manage the same iWeb website?

Everyone in our family has a Mac and their own blog. Is there any way each of us can use iWeb to access the same site from different computers?

Yes. But they can't be working on the file at the same time. See Old Toad's Tutorial #21 - Managing an iWeb site from multiple Macs with Dropbox.. This method makes it simple to do what you want but you have to adhere to the caveat that only once can be working on the file at the same time.
Otherwise, you wound have to have the domain file for the site make available on a server or external HD that all other Macs and users could access.
OT

How can multiple files for the same genre be consolidated

I organize my iTunes files in genre folders for easy access. ITunes creates multiple folders for some genres and allows a single (preferred) genre file for other much larger files. How can I consolidate multiple files with the same genre?

Thanks. I've done what you selected. The problem is that despite all files being identified with the same genre, iTunes groups some genres in two separate folders. Thus, I have two "Country" folders, for example. More perplexing is that iTunes groups my largest genre folder, "Jazz", in a single folder.

Multiple users accessing the same server.

Ok here is my issue, about 2 months ago I started having issues with Filesharing on my 2012 Mac Mini running Lion server (current update). We have 3 users that VPN into our conpany network and usually access the same folder, 2 months ago they started conflicting with each other. When one VPNs into the network and connects to the server they are fine, if the second one connects to the network they are fine but if the second one tries to access the fileshare they knock the second one off the server. The first one's connection eventually hangs and they have to completely disconnect from the VPN. I am wondering if this was caused by a patch or if there is something else going on. I have tried to reboot the server and checked the logs for anything but I am not seeing what may be causing this. I have restarted the Filesharing in the Server app and still get the same problem, the users are connecting via local credentials to the server. I don't think it is a password issue since either user can log in and access as long as another user doesn't so I am not sure what the issue could be.
any help appriciated,
josh

By 'standard record locking system' do you mean there is nothing I need to do programatically? No block level properties to change?
So you are saying this is just the way it always works. So as soon as one of our call center agents opens a record all I have to do is create a pending update to any field?
But won't another user be able to open the form and just query that record not knowing another user has it open?

How to do a NAT to multiple MACs via the same public IP

Heay y'all,
I have multiple MACs that I need to admin via the same public IP.
I'm trying to activate the NAT function on my airport 802.11n, but I can only register 1 internal IP address for the same port number.
Example:
public UDP port: 3283, 5900
public TCP port: 3283, 5900
Private IP Address: 10.0.1.201
Private UDP port: 3283, 5900
Private TCP port: 3283, 5900
Now if I try to do the same thing for another private address, I get a a conflict... (The Port mapping entry you have entered already exists.)
What I find wired is that:
a) why the private address starts at xxx.xxx.xxx.201
b) why can't I apply the same rule for multiple IPs (e.g. xxx.xxx.xxx.202 and xxx.xxx.xxx.203)
c) I have also, an airport 802.11g and I could configure the NAT table as I wanted.
Am I missing something?
Are three any wild-cards that would cover all internal IP addresses?
PS! I edited my ".baseconfig" file via "textedit" and added a additional private IP address, in the NAT section... I have not gotten any errors, when I load the file in to the base station. but then again I can't edit the IP field via the airport admin tool, and I have not been able to test this workaround.
looking forward to you comments.

Hi guys,
Thanks for the help....
I think i found an alternative solution...
I'll try useing a dedicated internal IP address for my adminwork... then I'll get the user to change from the DHCP allocated IP address to the dedicated one... this way same ports and IP address used for all of the machines.
I'll try this method... if it does not work then I have to use your suggestions... but thanks for your help and response.
www.gekko-systems.com

Prevent multiple users accessing the same form

hi,
i am working in forms
i have a requirement like this
if more than one user are using the same form and try to access the same record then the second user should not be able to do transaction
he should be popped up with a msg saying that other user is working on it
can any one suggest how to do this in my form
thanks in advance
selvaraj s

That is pretty much exactly the way Forms works automatically.
Two users can use the same form, and can even display the same data record. One of the users can make changes to the record -- Forms locks the row upon the FIRST keystroke in the first field the user begins to change.
Once the row is locked, the second user is free to look at the record, and won't even know if another user has begun making changes. However, if second user tries to change even one field in the record, Forms pops up the message, "Could not reserve record (2 tries). Keep trying? Yes / No"
There are also protections so if the first user actually changes the row and commits, then the second user tries to make a change. Forms will automatically detect whether changes were made, and if so, will undo the change and issue the message, "FRM-40654: Record has been updated by another user. Re-query to see change."
The above automatic processing works very nicely. If it will not work for you, then what is it you need?

Can multiple devices with the same apple id use airdrop

Can I use Airdrop between multiple devices sharing the same Apple ID?

I don't know but somebody will reply if you bump this message.

Multiple User Accessing the same record issue

I am planning to design an app where we have the following use case requirement.
If a user who is logged into the system is accessing a record(plan in this case) anyone else who is logged into the system at the same time should be locked out of that same plan but should still be able to access other plans in the system. A plan has many things associated with it so the 2nd user should be locked out of everything associated to the plan being accessed by the first user.
What is the best way to implement this at the application or the database level?
Here are some options we have been bouncing around.
1. When the first user logs in and accesses the first plan we lock the plan at the app level using a singleton class which has one and only one instance on the app server. The plan_id can be put as an entry into a hashtable which can be in the session and is created if one does not exist. When the 2nd user tries to access the same plan, since the plan_id is still in the hashtable he would be locked out. However we somehow need to timeout the first user after 30 mts of inactivity or so so that others can access the plan and are not locked out for ever if the first user walks away from his PC or does not close his browser, thus keeping his session alive indefinitely.
2. In the database in the plan table we add a column for 'locked'. When the first entry is created in the plan table locked column is marked as 'yes' or 1 and when the user closes the browser we use some javascript to trigger an event which changes that 'yes' or 1 to 'no' or 0 thus unlocking the plan. However the big issue we see in this concept is that we will have to put a javascript onUnload method in all jsp pages in the app because the user could be anywhere in the app after starting his plan access after login.
Conceptually the 2 options are the same but one is done at the app whereas the other is at the database level.
Is there a better way to handle this scenario using transactions or some other technological option.
Thanks

Another solution involving no modification of the database structure:
As soon as a user want to access a plan, try to UPDATE the plan record... if it fails, the record was locked
by another user before. When the user has finished with the plan, you can COMMIT or ROLLBACK the changes, which will free the lock for other users.
An advantage of this solution is that if program crashes unexpectedly, there will automatically be a ROLLBACK.
Of course, you need a transaction for this... and perhaps more if you want to separate the 'locking transaction' (virtual update just for restricting access) from the 'operating transaction' (in which you will
do the DB stuff: inserts, updates, deletes, etc.)
Hope this helped,
Regards.

Installing multiple instances accessing the same database

Hi,
I want to install two different instances of Oracle 10g in two different machines which will access the same database which will be stored in the shared storage.
Is it possible to install them without installing RAC? The instances will be one active and the other passive, so the services will be up in one server and down in the other and the switching (shutting down one server and starting up the other) will be manual.
Two servers will be running Linux and clustered in Linux level.
Does Oracle offers this solution without installing Clusterware software?
Thank you

> The instances will be one active and the other passive, so the services will be up in one server and down in
the other and the switching (shutting down one server and starting up the other) will be manual
Missed this part as I was thinking proper cluster and RAC.
This is neither. Yes, this can be done using two servers and shared storage.
Is it a good idea? Not really. As this configuration does not provide redundancy at physical database level. You loose that storage.. bye-bye database. Does not matter whether you have a 100 backup servers that can be used.
Thus the business reasons that you are trying to meet with this config have to be clarified and expectations determined.
Separate servers using Data Guard will be a far more superior solution in many respects.

Multiple threads access the same method.

Hello,
I have been trying for a long time to find out multiple threads access the shared data.
I have written a sample code, there I my intention is that method has to be accessed
onlny one thread at a time., mean one thread finished the job, then next thread can
access the shared source. But for this code I am not getting the desired out put what I want. But if I am using synchronized block I am getting the output. Please correct where I got mistake. Please see my code.
public class TestThread implements Runnable {
     Shared r;
     public TestThread() {
          r = new Shared();
     public static void main(String args[]) {
          Thread t1 = new Thread(new TestThread());
          Thread t2 = new Thread(new TestThread());
          t1.setName("A");
          t2.setName("B");
          t1.start();
          t2.start();
      * (non-Javadoc)
      * @see java.lang.Runnable#run()
     @Override
     public void run() {
          // TODO Auto-generated method stub
          r.count();
class Shared {
     public synchronized void count() {
          String name = Thread.currentThread().getName();
          System.out.println(name + ":accessed...");
          try {
               for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
                    System.out.println(name + ": " + i);
          } catch (Exception e) {
               // TODO: handle exception
}Thanks
Bhanu lakshmi.

It depends on what you synchronize. Non-static methods synchronize on the object, so if you're using several objects, you'll be able to call each from their own thread.
Make your method synchronized or use only a single object and see the difference.

Can two people access the same online number at th...

Me and my dad share the same online number for friends and colleagues to call us, but it seems that the calls that come through to me are ad-hoc whilst my dad gets every call on his system. I just wondered if this is because 2 systems are trying to access the same online number?
Thanks

Enter the SN where?

Can multiple Macs access the same firewire volume simultaneously?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for