| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: 9i RAC or 10g RAC ?
Thank you for pointing to my paper. Recently, though, I have decided
that I will no longer say "You Probably Don't Need RAC" or anything to
that effect.
Instead, I'll give this statement to our customers:
"I would highly recommend the use of RAC. In fact, when in doubt, use RAC. It's even free with Standard Edition.
Also, I want to stress that most customers should use partitioning. It doesn't matter how big your tables are, or whether you have the perfect partition key available - you should use it anyhow. It's cool, and it's available. It's not free, but it's worth a lot of money to you.
Advanced Queueing, Advanced Replication, in general Advanced.* should also be adopted agressively. Can't hurt, and it will make your business more advanced.
Kind regards,
A (large) share owner of a consulting company.
PS: Oh, and do not ever create a system without DataGuard... "
It's my experience that this very, very positive message has a much stronger impact on my listeners than the rather negative "You .... Don't..." message.
Mogens
Don Granaman wrote:
> I'll chime in...
>
> Cary, Zhu, and some others are correct. If you are looking for
> "performance", don't use RAC. The cost of everything , including just
> starting the instance, is greater. If you want basic availability, don't
> use RAC. It is more complex and has more "moving parts" that can go wrong.
> Please refer to Mogens' paper "You Probably Don't Need RAC" at
> http://www.miracleas.dk (via Writings From Mogens).
>
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Sun May 23 2004 - 09:04:58 CDT
 |
 |