Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: 10g RAC with Veritas SF

Re: 10g RAC with Veritas SF

From: LS Cheng <>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:54:12 +0100
Message-ID: <>

I met a Veritas guy when I was doing RAC installations last week with SFRAC, he told me that Oracle and Veritas signed a sort an agreement which starts next year where Oracle will start offering more Veritas Cluster than anything else?

Anyone can confirm that?

On 11/30/06, Kevin Closson <> wrote:
> Right on the money Kevin. Oracle is becoming more and more of a
> dictator and thinks of itself as a one-stop-shop, which just can not be
> true and is not. It is my understanding that they gave VERITAS a tough
> time when they were certifying SFRAC with 10GR2 for both 4.x and 5.x.
> ...I'm sure they did. If you read the RAC Technology Certification
> Matrix for other platforms, notably Linux, you'll notice that SFRAC is
> still not listed--whereas PolyServe is. Now if I was an ordinary person
> one would expect that fact to make me happy since I work for PolyServe.
> On the contrary I am neither normal, nor do I like that fact. Veritas
> should be allowed to participate in all Oracle certification programs as
> such programs exist. With Oracle-validated (RTCM), technology to choose
> from, datacenter choices can be made based on intelligence rather than
> fear. Competition is good for the customer and PolyServe wishes there
> was more of it. To quote someone I'd actually rather die than quote, as
> Bush said, "Bring it on". However,
> since the playing field is being manipulated, the competition factor is
> muddled.
> On the topic of competition, it seems Larry's claims that the UL thing
> is a competitive move has proven true. Look for upcoming
> PolyServe/Redhat joint press releases about Bi-lateral support
> agreements across the entire PolyServe stack--arbitrated if ever
> necessary by TSANet. Now THAT is how businesses with customer success at
> heart behave, isn't it?
> I'll blog on that soon
> --

Received on Thu Nov 30 2006 - 14:54:12 CST

Original text of this message