Re: New TPC benchmarks
Matthew, SAN's incur (much?) more codepath. If that makes things run faster that's excellent and fantastic. If removing a bunch of code and 8 or 9 layers between a server and a disk plate makes things slower there's something else wrong. Time and again we see how a laptop or desktop PC disk can outperform some fancy disk arrangement. That might be because the disk arrangement is not set up correctly, but that again requires a lot of effort and thought - and expensive consultants, which is very cool for me :). Before SAN's there were still some very high performance systems out there. After SAN's there are still some very poor performance systems out there. I work with some of them in the Terabyte range, and - oh lord - they become so expensive that they become political. And then you have the RAID-F's and/or the poorly configured monsteres that no-one can understand or handle anymore. What I think doesn't really matter, because SAN's promise - by adding 8-9 layers of complexity - to simplify the world and automate a lot of things. They do to some extent. But is it always worth the money? With small and medium businesses a number of things have become clear to me (and this is of course different from the monster systems): 1. They end up spending a large proportion of their IT budgets on disk technology. They didn't do that before. 2. They end up having a few servers attached to relatively many disks. Those disks are much more expensive than the ones you can put in, say, products from IFT. 3. They complain that no technician can handle the whole SAN stack. They end up blaming the previous technician. 4. When we do our SANity check - how many reads and writes are actually requested from the servers towards the disks - the picture is often one of far too many disks. The TPC benchmark is useful for comparing what? The TCO is useless precisely because every vendor can prove - using TCO - that they're the best solution. Too many things can be tweaked and twisted - just look at the way they calculate licensing stuff in the TPC benchmarks - it's kind of hard to find out how they arrived at those prices, isn't it? When Oracle puts out features that are excellent and useful for UPS or Amazon, that's nice. It's usually not useful for the rest of the world :). Of course, everything I've said only applies to Denmark. Mogens Matthew Zito wrote: Mogens, I wanted to clear something up - I keep seeing you post that SANs are slower than direct attached - I've said it before and I'll say it again: simply not true. There is zero, zero, zero reason why a SAN must be slower than a direct attached. In fact, in the fastest benchmark described in these results, the 10g on Itanium one, they're using a SAN. The only reason to direct-attach is to keep the cost down when you have a situation where you can run multiple I/O paths from a single node. There is a fixed limit on the number of direct paths you can run to an array - usually 2-4 - which makes things hard if you want an 8-node cluster. In general, the TPC benchmark is not a perfect process. However, having dealt with it in great detail, it is vastly superior to any of its predecessors in terms of simulating a real-world environment. While configurations like 2400 disks seem absurd to those of us in the field, the fact alone that you are required to include the total cost of the solution, plus disclose the complete configuration, and are not allowed to use any hidden or secret functionality is a huge step forward from previous benchmarks. Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mogens Nørgaard Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: New TPC benchmarks I love to read the Full Disclosure Reports: There were 672 x 18GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP, 1344 x 36GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP and 224 x 146GB 10krpm HDD Ultra320 HP in the benchmarked configuration. FYI: 672+1344+224 = 2240. IBM is considering a 1.6M benchmark, and the only problem these days is to find a sponsor for all the hardware you need. It might require 4000 disks - maybe mirrored to a total of 8000? The number of disks involved is becoming a problem for two reasons: One of them will probably fail. And since they're directly attached (for performance, SAN's in general suck compared to direct attach, as you know) it could take three hours to boot the machine. So they're considering going 1+0 aka MASE, not the inferior 0+1 or SAME, of course :). Simply to avoid the reboot time... Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. All the database vendors run their software in special debug modes during benchmarking - in case they hit something nasty :). Notice
Re: Re: New TPC benchmarks
I agree with the benefits of being able to wave benchmark papers around and saying But look what they HAD to do ! The line from one of the HP ones (1M tpcc) that I really liked was: quote Most of the space on the arrays in the tested system was unused during the performance tests, but is available to satisfy the 8-hour log and 60-day storage requirements. unquote If you want performance, you put just a thin stripe of active data on any one of those 180GB disc drives that the accountants love to buy because they're so cheap. Regards Jonathan Lewis http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk The educated person is not the person who can answer the questions, but the person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr One-day tutorials: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html Three-day seminar: see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html UK___November The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 1:29 AM what's really helpful about these, are the server tweaks made (if you deploy on win32). check out http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf Pg 170 - there's a list of all of the services that are disabled/stopped - 24 in all. Pg 224 - the section of the MS diagnostics report lists that provides a detail list of the services. lots of unneccesary features. Pd -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jonathan Lewis 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).
Re: New TPC benchmarks
Not just hash clusters, single-table hash clusters with user-defined, and very carefully designed hash key. Not something you can usually get away with in a dynamic table of 19 billion rows. Regards Jonathan Lewis http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk The educated person is not the person who can answer the questions, but the person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr One-day tutorials: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html Three-day seminar: see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html UK___November The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:49 AM Yes, both DB2, SQL Server and Oracle arrive in special editions for these benchmarks. Note also that no indexes are used - Oracle uses hash clusters, for instance. No indexes in sight. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jonathan Lewis 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).
Re: Re: New TPC benchmarks
- Original Message - I beg to differ. When I ask for 2 external storage units of 14 drives apiece (DAS), and they look at me like I obviously have no clue about their intentions of a 3 drive RAID something other than 10 config, a configuration that they can download just by showing them a link to there is a HUGE difference in terms of reality when we talk about a system with 2240 disk spindles and one of 2 external storage units of 14 drives each. Not even remotely related... In fact, in most places I go to if I show them the numbers in that link, they'll just ignore me and go buy whatever crap the IBM sales rep is flogging that week! Now, of course these documents are useful to find out what sorts of tricks they do re services in Windoze and so on. I've found those other ways. In fact, they are documented in M$'s Tech Notes. But yes, the docs above are also useful. Cheers Nuno Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Nuno Souto 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).
Re: New TPC benchmarks
Gives a whole new meaning to the expression surrogate key... Cheers Nuno Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 7:19 PM Not just hash clusters, single-table hash clusters with user-defined, and very carefully designed hash key. Not something you can usually get away with in a dynamic table of 19 billion rows. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Nuno Souto 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).
Re: New TPC benchmarks
In good, old times when I was much younger then today, things that were benchmarked were called MIPS, which was short for Marketing Invention for Pushing Sales. Today they have TPC transactions which are equally relevant to the real world, but have no good translation. Whoever chooses hardware vendor or the database vendor based on TPC results should be decapitated in public as a warning to the others. On 12/16/2003 03:19:26 AM, Jonathan Lewis wrote: Not just hash clusters, single-table hash clusters with user-defined, and very carefully designed hash key. Not something you can usually get away with in a dynamic table of 19 billion rows. Regards Jonathan Lewis http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk The educated person is not the person who can answer the questions, but the person who can question the answers -- T. Schick Jr One-day tutorials: http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/tutorial.html Three-day seminar: see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html UK___November The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html - Original Message - To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 6:49 AM Yes, both DB2, SQL Server and Oracle arrive in special editions for these benchmarks. Note also that no indexes are used - Oracle uses hash clusters, for instance. No indexes in sight. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Jonathan Lewis 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). Mladen Gogala Oracle DBA -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Mladen Gogala 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).
New TPC benchmarks
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp Finally, Oracle reclaims the lead! That Sqlserver isn't as scalable argument doesn't work too well when Sqlserver has a higher TPC benchmark. -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Michael Boligan 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).
Re: New TPC benchmarks
I love to read the Full Disclosure Reports: There were 672 x 18GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP, 1344 x 36GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP and 224 x 146GB 10krpm HDD Ultra320 HP in the benchmarked configuration. FYI: 672+1344+224 = 2240. IBM is considering a 1.6M benchmark, and the only problem these days is to find a sponsor for all the hardware you need. It might require 4000 disks - maybe mirrored to a total of 8000? The number of disks involved is becoming a problem for two reasons: One of them will probably fail. And since they're directly attached (for performance, SAN's in general suck compared to direct attach, as you know) it could take three hours to boot the machine. So they're considering going 1+0 aka MASE, not the inferior 0+1 or SAME, of course :). Simply to avoid the reboot time... Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. All the database vendors run their software in special debug modes during benchmarking - in case they hit something nasty :). Notice that they never use anything but shutdown abort in their scripts (Connor - you'll love this). IBM (with DB2) uses a slightly different technique: They take the power. Very fast, they say. Mogens Michael Boligan wrote: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp Finally, Oracle reclaims the lead! That Sqlserver isn't as scalable argument doesn't work too well when Sqlserver has a higher TPC benchmark. -- 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).
Re: Re: New TPC benchmarks
Mogens Nørgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. It's not only today... It's been like that for the last 8 years or so. Basically: Have $$$? Will win is the entire philosophy of all this TPC crap. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. Bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever, no matter how much extrapolation is done to justify it. The whole thing is an extravagant waste. Cheers Nuno Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Nuno Pinto do Souto 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).
RE: New TPC benchmarks
Mogens, I wanted to clear something up - I keep seeing you post that SANs are slower than direct attached - I've said it before and I'll say it again: simply not true. There is zero, zero, zero reason why a SAN must be slower than a direct attached. In fact, in the fastest benchmark described in these results, the 10g on Itanium one, they're using a SAN. The only reason to direct-attach is to keep the cost down when you have a situation where you can run multiple I/O paths from a single node. There is a fixed limit on the number of direct paths you can run to an array - usually 2-4 - which makes things hard if you want an 8-node cluster. In general, the TPC benchmark is not a perfect process. However, having dealt with it in great detail, it is vastly superior to any of its predecessors in terms of simulating a real-world environment. While configurations like 2400 disks seem absurd to those of us in the field, the fact alone that you are required to include the total cost of the solution, plus disclose the complete configuration, and are not allowed to use any hidden or secret functionality is a huge step forward from previous benchmarks. Thanks, Matt -- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mogens Nørgaard Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 5:44 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: Re: New TPC benchmarks I love to read the Full Disclosure Reports: There were 672 x 18GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP, 1344 x 36GB15krpm HDD Ultra320 HP and 224 x 146GB 10krpm HDD Ultra320 HP in the benchmarked configuration. FYI: 672+1344+224 = 2240. IBM is considering a 1.6M benchmark, and the only problem these days is to find a sponsor for all the hardware you need. It might require 4000 disks - maybe mirrored to a total of 8000? The number of disks involved is becoming a problem for two reasons: One of them will probably fail. And since they're directly attached (for performance, SAN's in general suck compared to direct attach, as you know) it could take three hours to boot the machine. So they're considering going 1+0 aka MASE, not the inferior 0+1 or SAME, of course :). Simply to avoid the reboot time... Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. All the database vendors run their software in special debug modes during benchmarking - in case they hit something nasty :). Notice that they never use anything but shutdown abort in their scripts (Connor - you'll love this). IBM (with DB2) uses a slightly different technique: They take the power. Very fast, they say. Mogens Michael Boligan wrote: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp Finally, Oracle reclaims the lead! That Sqlserver isn't as scalable argument doesn't work too well when Sqlserver has a higher TPC benchmark. -- 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). -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Matthew Zito 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).
Re: Re: New TPC benchmarks
Nuno, The whole thing is an extravagant waste. I beg to differ. When I ask for 2 external storage units of 14 drives apiece (DAS), and they look at me like I obviously have no clue about their intentions of a 3 drive RAID something other than 10 config, a configuration that they can download just by showing them a link to http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf is most helpful. But a nice, fat, multipathed slice off of their SAN is fine by me too, just as long as I have enough internal storage to keep an entire hot backup set on disk, along with a member for each redo log, and a controlfile, just in case. Pd Nuno Pinto do Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mogens Nørgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. It's not only today... It's been like that for the last 8 years or so. Basically: "Have $$$? Will win" is theentire philosophy of all this TPC crap. It's not worththe paper it's printed on. Bears no resemblanceto reality whatsoever, no matter how much "extrapolation"is done to justify it.The whole thing is an extravagant waste.CheersNuno Souto[EMAIL PROTECTED]-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net-- Author: Nuno Pinto do SoutoINET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
Re: Re: New TPC benchmarks
what's really helpful about these, are the server tweaks made (if you deploy on win32). check out http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf Pg 170 - there's a list of all of the services that are disabled/stopped - 24 in all. Pg 224 - the section of the MS diagnostics report lists that provides a detail list of the services. lots of unneccesary "features". PdPaul Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nuno, The whole thing is an extravagant waste. I beg to differ. When I ask for 2 external storage units of 14 drives apiece (DAS), and they look at me like I obviously have no clue about their intentions of a 3 drive RAID something other than 10 config, a configuration that they can download just by showing them a link to http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf is most helpful. But a nice, fat, multipathed slice off of their SAN is fine by me too, just as long as I have enough internal storage to keep an entire hot backup set on disk, along with a member for each redo log, and a controlfile, just in case. Pd Nuno Pinto do Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mogens Nørgaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. It's not only today... It's been like that for the last 8 years or so. Basically: "Have $$$? Will win" is theentire philosophy of all this TPC crap. It's not worththe paper it's printed on. Bears no resemblanceto reality whatsoever, no matter how much "extrapolation"is done to justify it.The whole thing is an extravagant waste.CheersNuno Souto[EMAIL PROTECTED]-- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net-- Author: Nuno Pinto do SoutoINET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!?New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
Re: New TPC benchmarks
Yes, both DB2, SQL Server and Oracle arrive in special editions for these benchmarks. Note also that no indexes are used - Oracle uses hash clusters, for instance. No indexes in sight. Just like certain large customers are running special versions of the Oracle RDBMS, by the way. So it's all about benchmarks fighting benchmarkers, always on the lookout for a sponsor, and nobody caring anymore about their results. Traditional marketing just doesn't work anymore. It's over. Mogens Paul Drake wrote: what's really helpful about these, are the server tweaks made (if you deploy on win32). check out http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf Pg 170 - there's a list of all of the services that are disabled/stopped - 24 in all. Pg 224 - the section of the MS diagnostics report lists that provides a detail list of the services. lots of unneccesary features. Pd */Paul Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Nuno, The whole thing is an extravagant waste. I beg to differ. When I ask for 2 external storage units of 14 drives apiece (DAS), and they look at me like I obviously have no clue about their intentions of a 3 drive RAID something other than 10 config, a configuration that they can download just by showing them a link to http://www.tpc.org/results/FDR/TPCC/dell_2650_261103_fdr.pdf is most helpful. But a nice, fat, multipathed slice off of their SAN is fine by me too, just as long as I have enough internal storage to keep an entire hot backup set on disk, along with a member for each redo log, and a controlfile, just in case. Pd */Nuno Pinto do Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote: Mogens Nørgaard wrote: Today it's only a question of finding a sponsor for the benchmark. Then you can break any report. It's not only today... It's been like that for the last 8 years or so. Basically: Have $$$? Will win is the entire philosophy of all this TPC crap. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. Bears no resemblance to reality whatsoever, no matter how much extrapolation is done to justify it. The whole thing is an extravagant waste. Cheers Nuno Souto [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net -- Author: Nuno Pinto do Souto INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=21260/*http://photos.yahoo.com Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://us.rd.yahoo.com/slv/mailtag/*http://companion.yahoo.com/ -- 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).
