Re: IDE versus SCSI

"Keith Boulton" <kboulton_at_ntlunspam-world.com> wrote in message news:<KXx%7.13315$Hx3.1512747_at_news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> "Dusan Bolek" <pagesflames_at_usa.net> wrote in message
> With proprietary hardware, you have no choice in what you have (although you
> do have a choice of which arm and leg you sell to pay for it)

When you have reached some size level, all hardware is proprietary.

> I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of production databases in use
> are considerably smaller than 100GB if only because a 100GB database was
> considered large until relatively recently. Also consider just how little
> data is required for operational (transactional) non-datawarehouse systems
> e.g. personnel, finance, factory operations.

That depends on organization you're working in. For example databases for SAP starts on 30GB (clear install, few users), small is 150GB (30 users) and about 400GB is medium size (150 users). Yes that shows "just how little
data is required for operational (transactional) non-datawarehouse systems
e.g. personnel, finance, factory operations". :-)

> > How will I get this size with IDE ? Using four IDE positions and fill them
> with 4x120GB Western Digital drives ?
> Asked and answered.

Hey, I need something called performance.

> Nor do you NEED redundancy. It is essential for the redo logs to prevent
> data loss, but for anything else, you are trading off cash against the risk
> of an hour or two's downtime a year to replace and restore a failed drive.
> You are explicitly banned from using Oracle in safety critical systems where
> it might matter.

Hour or two downtime can cost much more than RAID array in some companies. Not mentioning much bigger downtime on systems with heavy load, due to lenghty process of recovering information from redologs. Please shear some light upon me. What should I use in safety critical systems, instead of just humble Oracle ?

> My local DBA keeps trying to get us to pay £40,000 to move a database from
> NT to UNIX. At the end of which we'll have the same database we have now.
> There have been problems with the NT box, almost all of which are down to
> incompetent sysadmins and lack of disk space (which could be fixed for
> £300). Many people are simply snobbish about the use of UNIX.

Snobbish ? We have one server NT based with 1000 connection in dedicated mode. We have a terrible issues with it, because of NT limits. So we are so snobbish to switch to Solaris. :-) And £40,000 are no money in IT, it's hard even to get a good backup device and software for this price.

> > You can't live with four devices in database server.
> I am not aware of lethal consequences.

Have you ever heard term OFSA ? Lethal consequences are performance, scalability and availability.

--
_________________________________________

Dusan Bolek, Ing.
Oracle team leader

Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
email.