While fault tolerance is certainly one of the features of RAC, it isn't correct to say that it is not also for scalability.
Buy a bigger box? That works fine until you're in the biggest box you can get, then what? I realize that it's a small market segment that requires that kind of hardware, but it still exists. Sun has been testing a cluster of 15k servers with RAC, ostensibly for scalability. Some nodes are populated with 78 CPU's and 288 Gig of RAM. ( yes, that is correct ). Jared On Tue, 2003-08-05 at 07:54, Stephen Lee wrote: > > I think the point of RAC is fault tolerance, not scalability. If it's > performance you want then you want a bigger box, not more boxes. 8 CPUs is > not big. You sure don't need the expensive hardware if all you want to run > is 8 CPUs. It would be better to go with a smaller frame and use the money > you save to get more CPUs and additional I/O capacity. For example, instead > of E12K with 8 CPUs, get 4810 with 12 CPUs -- unless you have definite plans > to push the E12K out to its limits in the future. Don't forget to consider > the backup requirements of a 5 - 10 TByte database. Another consideration, > I think, is that those big, fancy boxes require additional sys admin skills. > > -----Original Message----- > Hi All > > I would like to ask for your thoughts on whether to RAC or just go vertical > (more cpu) > > Background > > Txn - OLTP like txn during day but batch extracts at night and > very big batch extract periodically > Data Volume - 5-10 TByte > Data volatility - 99 % of data is very much like a ware house (unchanged) > other 1% is read/update/delete/insert > > Options > 1. Say a very large server like a HP Superdome or SUN E12000 > with 8 CPUs > Server already exist so cost is in obtaining additional CPU/Blades > ie Traditional Server using plain old vanilla Oracle EE > - can still increase head room. > - batch programs can utilise all 8 CPUs > - storage system need not cater for clustering > > 2, Same large server like a HP Superdome or SUN E12000 but partitioned > into two. Each with 4 CPU. > Oracle RDBMS + RAC option > - storage server need to cater for cluster config > - max performance for batch is with 4 CPUs only > > > Which would you prefer and why. I am not convinced with the RAC option. > Now > if I was going with cheaper Intel servers like Dell servers with 4 CPUS > each, and > purchase say 4 nodes of 4 cpus each, that would be a different story. In > this case > I have the equipment and ability to grow vertically. > > ta > tony > -- > Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net > -- > Author: Stephen Lee > 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). > -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jared Still 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).
