Re: Parrallel Server Question

From: Pete Sharman <peter.sharman_at_oracle.com>
Date: 8 Nov 2002 09:47:56 -0800
Message-ID: <aqgtcc02c47@drn.newsguy.com>

In article <3DCBD751.3020607_at_networkcloud.com>, Chuckster says...
>
>
>Yea, but at the same time I want to build my skillset and make myself
>more employable =)
>
>Would parrallel experience be beneficial or are things moving away from
>this technology?
>
>-Thx,
>CC

Well it would be if you could spell parallel! :)

Sorry, couldn't resist. In answer to your question, my personal belief is that it would be beneficial for a few reasons:

RAC is so much easier to work with than OPS, so you'll see more people move towards it.
Clustered file systems are becoming more prevalent, so more people are inclined to look at clustering. Some people were scared away by the Unix requirement of raw devices (for some reason).
As more and more systems are put on the Internet, there is a greater need for HA, and RAC is a definite part of that.

My $0.02 worth.

Pete
>
>Brian Peasland wrote:
>>>Is RAC the 'replacement' for 9i parrallel server?
>>
>>
>> Yes. OPS was renamed RAC for the 9i release.
>>
>> Stay with Standby since your downtime window of 1 hour is acceptable.
>> This will keep complexity lower, which also keeping your hardware
>> expenses down. Your boss will love it!!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Brian
>
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

HTH. Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete

SELECT standard_disclaimer, witty_remark FROM company_requirements; Received on Fri Nov 08 2002 - 11:47:56 CST