Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1071789869.721491_at_yasure>...
> Joel Garry wrote:
>
> > Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1071674766.40553_at_yasure>...
> >
> >
> >>But that is exactly the point. OPS was version 1.0 and it just didn't
> >>work well. RAC a big improvement with cache fusion but still with
> >>limitations (many caused by the fact that Oracle's QA needs to learn
> >>what those two letters stand for). But with this generation I am
> >>impressed enough that I think almost everything I propose will be at
> >>least a two-node grid.
> >
> >
> > "No, you don't need a 64-way Superdome. You need _two_ 64-way Superdomes!"
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > jg
> > --
> > @home.com is bogus.
> > http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/business/news_1b17boeing.html
>
> If you believe that you don't understand RAC because with RAC you don't
> need any Superdomes and that lesson is being dramatically driven home
> right now by Amazon.com which has blown out all but one or two of the
> big machines.
>
> RAC properly implemented means not having to purchase expensive hardware.

Actually I don't understand. And I do need to explain to people why, so if there is a good reference, let me know. As it is, I cannot explain to people who don't see a need to scale why they should bother with a small Oracle system, which requires multiple boxes. Say, 50 users doing ordinary business stuff, is small.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/business/news_1b19spam.html