Re: What is Oracle10G?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:<3f1b5b12$0$31924$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message
> news:3F1ACFEA.671DCEF9_at_exxesolutions.com...
[deletia]
> >
> > Basically what I see, with RAC, N+1, grid, etc. is a recreation of the
> mainframe
> > from individual components. How else to compete with IBM and Hitachi? How else
> to
> > leverage investments that, for-the-most-part, sit idle.
>
> Hmmmm, I'll need to digest this one. You implying that we're
> going the way of the "super-mainframe" made of lots of little
> processing nodes? The Sun mantra: the network is the computer?
> Are we there yet? I don't think so: RAC is not the solution
> and blades technology is nowhere near that.

    Actually, RAC seems to be coming along rather nicely. It seems like the claims about transparent allocation and de-allocation of nodes and storage are total propaganda. However, Oracle seems to scale better across multiple machines with lesser CPU's and SGA's rather than one big mainframe style monster.

    In this respect, 10G is actually the polar opposite of mainframes.

>
> The thing is: database servers deal with *managing* data. That is
> different from *processing* it. I can see something like the
> multi-tier model going the "Sun-way", but I can't imagine any
> advantages from being able to send a tablespace to Outer-Mongolia
> to have a table full scanned. Of course I'm exagerating to make
> the point, but that's the general idea.

[deletia] Received on Mon Jul 21 2003 - 23:50:44 CDT