Re: Feedback on please

Thanks to all who replied. I am really grateful for the rational tone of the responses and for pointing out some of the errors in the document. I will check with my colleagues and seniors further on this but it looks like any changes to our plan will likely be minimal which is good since I was one of the main contributors to the original plan. :-)

I have tested Sql's failover clustering which is pretty easy to setup. However, I've read the setup instructions for RAC 3 times and I'm still not entirely confident I fully understand the process. I've installed a bunch of 7x, 8x and a couple of 9i standalone servers but never RAC or OPS. Will give it a shot next week and see how it goes. If successful I'll post my experience. Hopefully, that will help others who are lightweights like me.

Again, thanks for the great responses.

--AK

"Angie" <angie_kong_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:OWDE9.28936$hi6.3773_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> I was at Oracle World over a week back and got a free cup of coffee with
the
> following URL http://www.microsoft.com/sql/getmore which is mostly
> uninteresting marketing stuff. One thing that did catch my eye was the
paper
> on RAC http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/oracle-rac.asp.
>
> Would appreciate your thoughts on this so that we may decide if we need to
> alter our 2003 plans. I know it's hard but please keep to the facts and
save
> the slams for another day (yes, we all enjoy them but please, not today,
> thanks). We use several databases apart from Oracle and biased opinions
> doesn't help us at all. Really appreciate your time on this.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --AK
>
>
Received on Tue Nov 26 2002 - 22:02:40 CST