> From hanson@fnsolar Tue Oct 31 16:19:16 1995
>
> On Tue, 31 Oct 1995, john grant wrote:
> Well, there are an awful lot of reasons this is a bad idea. The
> performance will stink. It'll completely kill your network as you'll
> continually be generating callbacks. I doubt it will work reliably.
>
> But basically, it's wildly outside of the design of Oracle. The model of
> the database is that the data is kept on a machine that does all of the
> reads/writes to the database through the database server. If what you
> have in mind is to share the data and run Oracle on individual nodes to
> locate it --- then that's just not the design of Oracle at all. What you
> want to do is get client licenses for the various machines and access the
> data across the network through SQLNET. If you DON'T intend to use AFS
> to share the data - then why put it in AFS space in the first place.
>
> Basically I just don't think you want to give it any thought at all.
> It's not a reasonable thing to do with AFS and it's certainly not a
> reasonable thing to do with Oracle.
>
> Now you could certainly use AFS to share the binaries, etc. Just not the
> data.
>
I should have given some more detail in my post about the intended use.
The main purpose is for Database classes taught in our Computer Science
Dept. We run a network of 300+ Sun workstations for the entire College
of Engineering. All the students have volumes in AFS and my mission in
life to make sure that's the only file space I need to manage.
The coursework is fairly straight forward, but each of the students needs
to create their own databases, tables, and queries. The databases
won't be complex and most likely not shared. My goal isn't high end
database performance...only economics of access. Otherwise I'll have
to set up a separate machine with UFS space for each of the students
(40-80/semester) coming, going, staying, returning...you get my drift.
Actually I might be willing to accept a constraint of not allowing
record locking on the AFS-based database and set up a database server
for limited shared access when people want to use record-locking.
The Oracle sales people about had a heart attack when I told them
I wanted 40 floating "server" licenses. Given the intention of training
multitudes of Oracle disciples that know the entire process from
server to client end, I think I can convince them to cut us the deal.
Any comments?
jlg
----- Original Post -----
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Oct 31 17:19:03 1
Has someone attempted to use Oracle (latest versions) for databases
physically located in AFS?
We're currently using Empress, who agreed to make changes required
for successful use with AFS. The changes were related to providing
a record locking layer disassociated with the actual physical
file system. [Required since AFS only provides file locking]
Oracle's popularity is generating quite a bit of demand and we'd
like to address these requests somehow. I've queried Oracle relative
to their position on AFS and thus far I've received such enlightened
responses as "I don't know what AFS is, so we must not support it."
I'd would be satfisied if they just gave me an clear answer of "No",
but the responses thus far boil down to "I don't know."
If anyone has experience dealing with Oracle/AFS issues or any
other major DB provider I would appreciate hearing about those
solutions.
Thanks,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ John L. Grant + [EMAIL PROTECTED] +
+ Faculty Associate for Engineering Computing + 704-547-4153 +
+ UNCC College of Engineering + 704-547-2352 FAX +
+ Charlotte, NC 28223 + Stress? What Stress? +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
