Re: [new info] Redhat Advanced Server Dev Edition - RAC

[Tim Gorman]

Standard Edition (SE) will do the good, old standby database thing quite well, but without the bells-and-whistles that became available in v8.1.x (i.e. automated log shipping, log shipping over SQL*Net, automated log apply, up to 5 archive destinatios, etc).  You'll essentially be running in v7.3.x mode (which I'm personally happy to do, because it allows me to use some good, old tried-and-true scripts).  For a while in the 8.1.5 timeframe, there was even a bug whereby the *primary* database instance could be crashed by an ORA-00600 occuring on the *standby* database instance (!!!), so those good, old standby databases operating in v7.3 mode on v8.1 software looked pretty danged smart...   Very often, Oracle will allow the second node in a standby arrangement to be licensed using "named-user" licensing, so you only pay the US$15K/processor for the "primary" server and then pay the 5-named-user minimum (25-named-user minimum for EE) on the "standby" server (something like US$2-3K total for SE, something like US$12-15K total for EE, I think -- can't say for certain because the unbreakable OracleStore is down at the moment).  Of course, you can't even license SE on a box with more than four processors...   You can run a wide variety of applications on SE;  I've seen PeopleSoft run happily in production on it, no quibbles whatsoever... ----- Original Message ----- From: Mogens Nørgaard To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [new info] Redhat Advanced Server Dev Edition - RAC I'm not sure, but I think the good, old standard standby thing will work with SE ($15K per CPU). Data Guard requires EE, so that's $40K. But 3rd party tools (I have tested none of them, but I know the name Quest Shareplex) will run on SE - but then they probably cost a lot, too. Oracle is moving towards the idea that any HA-option will require you to use EE. In some places, where SE is good enough, 3rd party tools might suddenly look attractive :). Mogens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Simple: RAC = $60k per CPU. Standby = $40k per CPU. Jared DENNIS WILLIAMS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/11/2003 01:54 PM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc: Subject: RE: Re[2]: [new info] Redhat Advanced Server Dev Edition - RAC Dick How is the standby database cheaper? I understood from previous list discussions that you had to license the standby server as well. As the hardware and O/S become commodities, I think Oracle would like to avoid becoming a commodity. Commodity prices are low, as any farmer can tell you. But the further issue is "how do Oracle DBAs avoid becoming a commodity?". Maybe the next question coming is "why should we pay more for a DBA when we're getting the computer and software so cheap?" Dennis Williams DBA, 40%OCP Lifetouch, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:29 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Jared, I don't know about the rest of the list members, but the company I work for would like to have the technology but without the additional license expense. Therefore were going to do the standby database thing instead of RAC. Now if your into using Linux with low end PC's then maybe you can justify it. I don't know, it gives me the whillies when the software costs more than the hardware and OS combined. Dick Goulet ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Author: Jared Still <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2/11/2003 8:29 AM This is all cool technology, and fun stuff to play with. It all begs the questions, "How many of us work for a business that actually need this?" "Are they willing to pay $400/user $20k/CPU above the cost of Oracle 9i EE to use it?" "Are they willing to pay the extra overhead required to maintain it?" I'm not sure the ROI is there for many of us. Though downtime at our business is somewhat expensive, I think that a failover system or even standby database will provide adequate coverage for us, which is indeed a hot topic here right now, after our Dell SAN put us out of business for 36 hours. RAC wouldn't have helped much there. Niether would a cluster for that matter. Standby DB would have been perfect. This whole push of RAC by Oracle reminds me very much of the mlife phone campaign by ATT. Do you really need to take pictures with your phone? And what is the point of sending text messages to someone elses phone when you could just call them? ATT needs you to buy this stuff, because they have it for sale. I see RAC in a similar light. Do you need RAC? Oracle needs you to 'need' it, because they need some reason for you to spend more money on their product. Jared On Saturday 08 February 2003 21:23, Richard Ji wrote: To those who are interested in running RAC on Linux. I know we have been talking about RAC on linux lately. This is great news Redhat has made a special developer's edition for their Advanced Server which only costs $60! So we don't have to shell out $699 for a copy of RHAS 2.1 to play with RAC. http://www.redhat.com/software/advancedserver/developer/ Have fun. Richard Ji