Re: help on oracle parallel server

The only point I'd make with the F50s (which we use) is that you may hit a performance limit quite early on. The S70 (which we also use) is a far more powerful and expandable server, and doesn't cost anything like the price of an SP2. Might be worth a look.

As regards performance, you'd have to architecture around OPS to get the most from it. It's an 'all or nothing', IMHO. As regards FT, maybe a couple of SMP servers with shared external disks and some 'failover' software might be a much simpler and cost effective solution. I've done this on HP in the past (with HP's Switchover product) and it's worked pretty well. OK, your Oracle users would see an interruption of service whilst the servers switched over in the case of a failure, but the cost and management effort day-to-day is much reduced.

All the best.

MotoX.

Scott Cote wrote in message <35A39194.3B9FF738_at_contractor.net>...
>Everyone that I have consulted with seems to concur with your statement
>(mostly derived from problems/incapabilities with the LVM's).
>
>Economics is a big factor in my choice of servers. I am essentially
starting a
>company that will be handling approx 50 000 transactions a day withen one
>year. Unfortunately, I don't have the cash flow to buy an SP2 or an HP
9000T
>or a Solaris ES10000 . But I can afford the computers that I mentioned
>earlier.
>
>I have dual goals (of equal importance) - speed and fault tolerance. There
>are much cheaper solutions if all I am looking for is one or the other, but
>that is not my situation.
>
>So I am trying to buy minimal architecture that will allow growth into the
the
>high volume system with as few speed bumps (redo of hardware architecture
>plans) as possible.
>
>The immediate purchase will be for one node of my cluster. The other nodes
>will be added later.
>
>If the consensus that the machines that I have chosen will not make the
grade
>for clustering, then I will give up on clustering for the mean time and
just
>sitdown and buy an SMP system with a fail over (an HA system).
>
>Hope this clarifies my intentions.
>
>Any help is appreciated.
>
>Thanks,
>
>SCott
>
>Scott Cote
>Hive Software, Inc.
>710 Rockcrossing Lane
>Allen Tx 75002
>
>scottcote_at_contractor.net
>(972) 672 - 6484
>
>MotoX wrote:
>
>> I've mainly used IBM and HP. Out of the two, I'd pick IBM (we use F50s
and
>> S70s) over HP. The IBM have better management tools and support - at
least
>> here in the UK.
>>
>> For a Parallel Server system I'd go SP2. For a big SMP server I'd go S70.
>> I'm curious as to why you are using Parallel Server - fault tolerance? or
>> performance (multi instance db)? I would have thought there were simpler,
>> cheaper solutions for FT than Parallel Server, and more scalable systems
>> with Parallel Server for performance like the SP2. Maybe budget reasons?
>>
>> MotoX
>>
>> Scott Cote wrote in message <35A2D814.8C7C0E4B_at_contractor.net>...
>> >Please save me from marketing thugs.
>> >
>> >I am setting up a brand spanking new data center and am trying to make
>> >an informed decision as to what platform I am going to run OPS on.
>> >Platforms under consideration:
>> >
>> >Sun ES450
>> >HP K box
>> >IBM rs6000 F50
>> >
>> >I don't want to even consider an NT class machine (I am a UNIX bigot).
>> >
>> >If you have any advice regarding hardware (server/storage/network) - I
>> >am all ears (eyes actually).
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >
>> >SCott
>> >
>> >Scott Cote
>> >scottcote_at_contractor.net
>> >(972) 672 - 6484
>> >
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jul 09 1998 - 02:15:58 CDT