Re: Oracle Exadata Machine
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 12:05:08 -0500 (CDT)
Well, I did say "mostly". It's possible that "partially" is more accurate. I don't have direct performance comparison between the two but would certainly like to.
My point is that something designed from the ground up for a particular task 'should' perform better than something that is adapted from existing technology. Again, I can't say whether that is true in this case.
The Neteeza appliance is designed around modules with a CPU, custom ASIC chip and hard drive. There are around 200 modules (could be more or less depending on configuration), each processing 0.5% of the data and passing the results to another CPU for consolidation.
To me that is a better architecture for certain types of applications. Then there's the columnar database people (Vertica) that will tell you their architecture is better still.
>>> The customized hardware is built for that while Oracle's architecture is
> mostly a
>>> reconfiguration of existing Oracle features such as RAC along with new
> I must disagree with that statement. Exadata is lot more sophisticated for
> such an oversimplified statement.