RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-14 Thread Matthew Zito
Subject: RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical 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

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-14 Thread tjambu_fatcity
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Lee Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical I think the point of RAC is fault tolerance, not scalability. If it's performance you want then you want a bigger box

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-14 Thread Stephen Lee
Well, I got on tpc.org and checked it out, and yes, Oracle on HP is at the top of the tpc-c heap. And it's HP Itanium; but not cluster. Actually, SQL Server is down to #3. It's about time for Billy boy to pull his socks up and get back into this pissing contest. -Original Message-

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-14 Thread Matthew Zito
05, 2003 3:35 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical When you do TCO analysis do add in the costs of administration? Yes (in fact, we even say that it costs three times as much to administer a linux RAC cluster as a sun cluster). The learning

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-14 Thread tjambu_fatcity
Hi Jared Was that a cluster of Sun E15ks or A single E15K of clustered domains within itself? The reason I mention the E12k and HP Superdome was that the equipment is already available. All I need is to purchase additional CPUS. I am trying to enquire as to what people have commissioned with

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-14 Thread Stephen Lee
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

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-11 Thread Jared . Still
Jared Still [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/05/2003 08:44 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical While fault tolerance is certainly one

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-11 Thread Jared . Still
The 15k was simply a node in a cluster. Jared [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/05/2003 10:24 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical Hi Jared

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-10 Thread tjambu_fatcity
of the article, in fact, I think you should. Jared Jared Still [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/05/2003 08:44 AM Please respond to ORACLE-L To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-07 Thread Jared Still
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,

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-06 Thread Piet de Visser
Matt, Brad, Group, Another Bite. My opinion on RAC (after limited nr of trials), I did read Mogens and loads of other articles, ppts etc... The arguments in favour of RAC are : - Scalability (scale out, rather then forklift) - flexibility (capacity on demand, increase and Decrease) -

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-06 Thread Odland, Brad
RAC - Intel is not yet proven as far as I can tell. So be very cautious about choosing this path for such a large project. I would probably stick with the big box and concentrate on as fastas IO as possible. No wait please do the RAC with Intel quads, figure out all the bugs and pitfalls

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-06 Thread Odland, Brad
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Odland, Brad Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:35 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical When you do TCO analysis do add in the costs of administration? Yes (in fact, we even say that it costs three times as much

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-05 Thread tjambu_fatcity
Stephen I agree with your comments re scalability vs fault tolerance. Actually the configuration I am looking at is 16 CPUS. So it is either one domain (vertical) of 16 CPUS or 4 nodes of 4 CPUs each or 2 nodes of 8 CPUS each. And on top of this I have to cater for a Standby environment as

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-05 Thread Odland, Brad
Subject: RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical 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

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-05 Thread Jack Daniels
ll: 646-220-3551Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359http://www.gridapp.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Odland, Brad Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 3:35 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Subject: RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical When you do TC

RE: Q. To RAC or go vertical

2003-08-05 Thread Stephen Lee
Yeah, I thought about making the statement a little more vague to leave myself plenty of wiggle room. But, what the heck, go ahead and make it, and see what happens. Granted, there might be extreme circumstances in which RAC might be the only way to bring sufficient numbers of CPUs to bear.