Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 17436 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2008 15:38:35 -0600 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by static-ip-69-64-49-119.inaddr.intergenia.de with SMTP; 16 Jan 2008 15:38:34 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id E5FFD7E5D64; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19571-04; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 527DD7E5C00; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:38:34 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 8A9187E6014 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19258-04 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:36:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.181]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id F2D217E5C00 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:36:23 -0500 (EST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id k22so702643waf.18 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:36:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=4+9xZUjOP9Y4ZxDOzwZZB33yUg4UpuSM1fSgkyipsVY=; b=iDT75l/eunRLlZIxRCpNccXpyC+k33sX44kDvxhvEN+KkX+JVYFdz0Kd7TtN0STgilZ+O9qG32bxSgzbFdrtH2pY7+a7G8FvwHJ1pCxc5QKuE69tYXtLEIpecKFDsDLlixAWUCTb3NQLzpYbOGnsehvWwIKXQi7YjxDluBh/a10= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=c5cGfOJNcKBLxk3zjO6zYUxEnvbcIbbKV4Cp4MKYtFNvBPnB6P9PGXFveufQkiNEbiyUGyOGyvda2yUoC0tc15wmFLKQt+/8U93TzWG/AM+Kspx5AtpgElBqV7MTbplYzX9SsB3cm/PJiYDRrfvNCa3pZS/aor8ZH1QaAMRNW04= Received: by 10.114.93.17 with SMTP id q17mr1476804wab.70.1200519383142; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.24.12 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:36:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <7765c8970801161336v193180f2hefee68915a9a31b2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 21:36:23 +0000 From: "Niall Litchfield" To: hrishy Subject: Re: Advantage of ThirdParty Cluster over Oracle Supplied Free one Cc: oracle-l@freelists.org In-Reply-To: <288970.54402.qm@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_24636_28757257.1200519383129" References: <7765c8970801160902j41b14eb4r5b58b97ce6386376@mail.gmail.com> <288970.54402.qm@web27805.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> X-archive-position: 4679 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: niall.litchfield@gmail.com Precedence: normal Reply-to: niall.litchfield@gmail.com List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: oracle-l X-List-ID: oracle-l List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain ------=_Part_24636_28757257.1200519383129 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You could reverse them if you want. I have this cluster solution that Is new. Only helps one of our key technologies. Can be slower than existing cluster solutions. Is unknown to the people that adminster it. Presumably that might fly better? General applicability, ease of adoption and performance tend to be quite good arguments. Admittedly I only work for a billion pound turnover organisation, and it doesn't do cutting edge, but they are certainly things we'd consider. I know of people who, quite reasonably regard VMS as an objectively superior OS to Windows, curiously VMS doesn't outsell Windows anywhere much - even in the data centres of multi-million dollar corporates. In general I guess I'm saying that the technical best solution - and I'm not convinced v2 of a cluster solution is it - isn't the most appropriate for business needs, and which technology is chosen is in the end a business choice. Niall Niall On Jan 16, 2008 5:09 PM, hrishy wrote: > Hi Niall > > Well i really doubt these kind of reasons do work in > Multi-Million Dollar organisations where we need to be > objective in our assesment. > > regards > Hrishy > --- Niall Litchfield > wrote: > > > It's been around a while. > > It's general purpose. > > It can be quicker to failover etc. > > Your sysadmins may already know it well. > > > > Niall > > On Jan 16, 2008 4:08 PM, hrishy > > wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > Does anybody know what the thrid party > > cluseterware > > > from Veritas SUN and IBM HACMP over and above what > > has > > > already been offered by Oracle for free. > > > > > > regards > > > Hrishy > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox > > http://uk.mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > -- > > > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Niall Litchfield > > Oracle DBA > > http://www.orawin.info > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com > -- Niall Litchfield Oracle DBA http://www.orawin.info ------=_Part_24636_28757257.1200519383129 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
You could reverse them if you want. I have this cluster solution that
 
Is new.
Only helps one of our key technologies.
Can be slower than existing cluster solutions.
Is unknown to the people that adminster it.
 
Presumably that might fly better?
 
General applicability, ease of adoption and performance tend to be quite good arguments. Admittedly I only work for a billion pound turnover organisation, and it doesn't do cutting edge, but they are certainly things we'd consider. I know of people who, quite reasonably regard VMS as an objectively superior OS to Windows, curiously VMS doesn't outsell Windows anywhere much - even in the data centres of multi-million dollar corporates. 
 
In general I guess I'm saying that the technical best solution - and I'm not convinced v2 of a cluster solution is it - isn't the most appropriate for business needs, and which technology is chosen is in the end a business choice. 
 
Niall 
 
Niall
 
 


 
On Jan 16, 2008 5:09 PM, hrishy <hrishys@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Niall

Well i really doubt these kind of reasons do work in
Multi-Million Dollar organisations where we need to be
objective in our assesment.

regards
Hrishy
--- Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's been around a while.
> It's general purpose.
> It can be quicker to failover etc.
> Your sysadmins may already know it well.
>
> Niall
> On Jan 16, 2008 4:08 PM, hrishy
> <hrishys@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Does anybody know what the thrid party
> cluseterware
> > from Veritas SUN and IBM HACMP over and above what
> has
> > already been offered by Oracle for free.
> >
> > regards
> > Hrishy
> >
> >
> >
>
__________________________________________________________
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox
> http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
> >
> > --
> > http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA
> http://www.orawin.info
>



     __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com



--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.orawin.info ------=_Part_24636_28757257.1200519383129-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l