Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Grid skepticism

RE: Grid skepticism

From: Orr, Steve <>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 10:12:02 -0600
Message-ID: <>

The article doesn't actually say that MySQL can do grid but in the immediate context the author is not clear as to what he's talking about. Regarding the statement, "throwing servers at the problem," what IS the problem anyway?=20

Is the "problem:"=20
1) merely providing general database services; or=20 2) providing simultaneous access to the SAME data for 10,000 concurrent sessions?=20

The greater context of the article is questioning the need for grid in the first place and there are very few outfits who REALLY need to solve the second problem. If you don't need to support an extremely large number of users having concurrent access the *same* data then why pay for this functionality when something much cheaper will do the job just fine?=20

I work at one of the world's top 25 ASP's and we can very effectively and cost efficiently throw MySQL/Linux servers at the "problem" because our database schemas are completely self-contained. So let's see, I have this new customer with a self-contained set of data and I need to provide database services for their web app. Do I put them on... An inexpensive database server that merely does the job well... Or on an all encompassing grid infrastructure with this hugely expensive, expansive, and sometimes complex RDBMS that comes with or markets its support for grid, clustering, multi-master and materialized view replication, queuing, OLAP, data warehousing, data mining, partitioning, automatic storage management, job scheduling, flashback queries, BLAST queries, GeoRaster queries, object oriented data types, text search, spatial search, "Ultra Search," workflow, XML, directory services and Internet directory services, internet file systems, clustered file systems, embedded Java and a Java development platform, an application server, a web server, a wallet manager, a data mart suite, a collaboration suite, an e-business suite, an "express server," an internet developer suite, a JSP engine, HTML DB, BLAF, and oh yeah, BEANS and a 5 day class just on new features!

Why pay for things you don't need? To preserve the customer base and keep people like me from moving to another RDBMS Oracle needs to provide a basic ANSI SQL database server for about $2K max per server. IMHO.

Steve Orr
Off the grid in Bozeman, Montana
(And sold my Oracle stock.)

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of Nuno Souto Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: Grid skepticism

Jesse, Rich apparently said,on my timestamp of 24/06/2004 6:14 AM:
> I don't agree with his analogy to the Great Eastern Blackout of '03. =20
> =3D IIRC, that happened because of failures to maintain the structure =

> the =3D grid from years of patching into it and adding onto it.

What seriously worries me is when someone that is supposed to have a credible point of view on the issue states this:

In fact, it's just that high cost that has boosted the popularity of MySQL. At $500 per server, regardless of the number of CPUs, major Web sites that utilize it can afford to throw as many servers at the problem as they need. </QUOTE>

1- the guy has COMPLETELY misunderstood what grid is and how it works or 2- the guy is a complete ignorant...

MySQL simply has NO SUPPORT for "throw as many servers at the problem as they need". It ain't work that way...

Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:

To unsubscribe send email to: put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
Archives are at
FAQ is at

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
To unsubscribe send email to:
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
Archives are at
FAQ is at
Received on Thu Jun 24 2004 - 11:21:32 CDT

Original text of this message