Re: Larry Ellison comments on Microsoft's benchmark

Ivana Humpalot wrote:
> <<snipped>>
> If you set the disk aside for a moment and look only at the
> reliability of the machines (and OS, especially in Windows land),
> then Oracle Parallel Server with the same 12 machines is INFINITELY
> more reliable than a DB/2 or MS SQL on 12 machines. Why? Because
> in Oracle Parallel Server, if one machine goes down the system
> as a whole is unaffected (except for lower performance.) Thus
> unless all the machines go down at the same time (very unlikely)
> your system is up. In DB/2 or MS SQL, if AT LEAST one machine
> goes down the system as a whole is down. If you have 12 machines
> then the probability of at least one machine going down is
> 12 times higher, so your system as a whole is 12 times less
> reliable compared to a system with only one machine. And if you
> compare to Oracle Parallel Server running on the same 12 machines,
> DB/2 and MS SQL are INFINITELY less reliable.

Please let me know who is running OPS on 12 machines. Why? Because I want to stay as far away as possible. It requires an experienced DBA to handle backup and recovery on a 2 server OPS system. I can't imagine trying to keep the logs of 12 machines straight. Also, what kind of disk farm can handle connections to 12 servers simultaneously? I think you are well past the realm of practicality. That is why MPP servers have a place in high performance applications.

Big Al Received on Tue Jul 11 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT