Re: IDE versus SCSI

Dusan Bolek <pagesflames_at_usa.net> wrote in message news:1e8276d6.0201150418.2405648f_at_posting.google.com...

> The problem is that selection of data which must be stored are not up
> to you. Usually some business leader just wants everything for five
> years and to single transaction level. And that in company with
> milions of acounts means that hundreds of gigabytes are reality.

Not disagreeing, but these are presumably the same people who later complain about how slow the system is.

Call me old-fashioned, but I still believe that operational systems (as distinct from data wareho's) should be limited to the set of active data.

> It depends on business. For example in financial sector almost
> everything is MUST-WORK-NO-DOWNTIMES-PERMITTED.
Yet surprisingly there is always downtime. In the end, the customer should get what they ask and are prepared to pay for. My objection lies with technicians who do not prevent all the options to their customer.

> In enterprise area everything cost much more than any of us would pay
> in supermarket. :-) That explain why you have to pay so much for your
> insurance or mortgage. :-)

Funny how easy people find it to spend other people's money.

One of the reasons I dislike working in the financial sector is that people would rather throw money at a problem that think about it.

>
> > No. I looked it up in google, but I don't see the relevance of the
Ontario
> > Funeral Service Association.
>
> Oracle Flexible Storage Architecture. I also heard this term just
> recently, although I'm using guidelines from OFSA while implementing
> Oracle database for several years. I just didn't know that not placing
> index tablespace with data tablespace on same disk is called OFSA.

Is this the same as what used to be called the optimal flexible architecture now that "storage" has become a buzzword. (rather like enterprise did a few years ago) Received on Tue Jan 15 2002 - 14:47:23 CST