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
:[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
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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)
-
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
:[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
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
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
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
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.
17 matches
Mail list logo