Just had a DML-heavy customer in an exotic country who saw 45% scaling on the third Linux node, and 0% when adding the fourth. 50% of time spent enqueue'ing. Yes, it's probably an application problem, but it's made worse by RAC. Worked better on HP/UX, they say, but they only tested a 2-node cluster there.
You cannot fix code that doesn't scale well by going RAC. On the contrary. The overhead will always be there. A 4WD will get you much further into the swamp before you're stuck. But stuck you will be sooner or later.
A fun saying that goes around in Oracle says: "Any application will run unmodified on Real Application Clusters. If it doesn't scale, it's not a real application." Respect!
Mogens
Stephen Lee wrote:
You have to watch out for those who think RAC is a synonymous with RAIB (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Boxes). It ain't.
-----Original Message-----
I feel like I should have started this response "Hello my name is Steve
McClure and I am a RAC on Linux doubter" Really I have felt this way for a
long time. Maybe the time will come when I see it as a great idea, but
right now it just doesn't add up for me.
-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mogens_N=F8rgaard?= INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com San Diego, California -- Mailing list and web hosting services --------------------------------------------------------------------- To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L (or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
