Re: IDE versus SCSI

"Dusan Bolek" <pagesflames_at_usa.net> wrote in message news:1e8276d6.0201110612.4a75f82f_at_posting.google.com...
> "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.

Which really goes to the heart of the issue. If you need a very large server, with terabytes of disk space then you're going to have to spend a lot of money. If your needs are more modest, there is no technical reason no to use IDE as a drive interface. I think you'd be surprised at how high a load a small intel box can handle unless the application is designed with utter contempt for performance and resource utilisation (step forward Oracle applications).

> That depends on organization you're working in.

I agree, but I stand by what I said about the majority of 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". :-)

If you try to put everything into one database, particularly with modern (ie ludicrously inefficient) development practices, the database will be bigger.

> Hey, I need something called performance.

Actually, you may or may not. Again, this is the point. Some applications may have tremendous performance requirements - others will not. You should decide on a case by case basis how much you're going to pay to get the best performance, otherwise it's like insisting that only a rolls-royce is good enough as a car.

> Hour or two downtime can cost much more than RAID array in some
> companies.

Again, it's true for some applications and not for others - fitness for purpose is the key.

> Not mentioning much bigger downtime on systems with heavy load, due to
lenghty process of recovering information from redologs. Unless you have gigabytes of redo, it's not going to add much to the recovery time.
And again it's a matter of horses for courses.

> Please shear some light upon me. What should I use in safety critical
> systems, instead of just humble Oracle ?
I refer you to the terms and conditions (in particular for Java) that you agree to when you install Oracle.

> 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. :-)
I believe you made the correct decision, but it is not always the most cost effective decision to run a non-intel unix box.

> And £40,000
> are no money in IT, it's hard even to get a good backup device and
> software for this price.

Value for money seems to be a forgotten term in IT these days (or possibly ever).
Multiply it by 10 or 20 servers and it starts to get significant. In any case:

    Look after the mickles and the muckles will look after themselves.

> Have you ever heard term OFSA ?

No. I looked it up in google, but I don't see the relevance of the Ontario Funeral Service Association.

Or, indeed, the Oracle Financial Services Application.

> Lethal consequences are performance, scalability and availability.
It depends.

I'd like to conclude my last post on this subject with a summary of what I believe our positions are.

You have stated some circumstances under which it would be senseless to use IDE devices in an Oracle server. I agree that there are many times when this is true. I also believe there are many circumstances in which it is both appropriate and cost-effective to use IDE devices and that a "one size fits all" policy is always a bad thing. Received on Fri Jan 11 2002 - 13:03:48 CST