Re: yipeee!

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:25:50 -0800
Message-ID: <1075922698.142007@yasure>

Mark A wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1075911718.754061_at_yasure...
> 

>>Of course it does. Oracle doesn't use shared nothing ... but then
>>neither does IBM on its mainframes. Shared nothing may be fast ... but
>>it is a maintenance nightmare. It requires partitioning data into
>>separate physical storage. It requires some recoding of an application
>>when nodes are added or removed. And worst of all ... the cluster must
>>be brought down and restarted ... whenever a node is added or removed.
>>
>>There is a reason IBM doesn't use shared nothing on their mainframes.
>>They don't have too. And there is a reason why they are working like
>>crazy to overcome shared nothing's weaknesses on their other platforms
>>... like AIX.
>>
>>Shared nothing only looks good when compared with Microsoft's Federated
>>architecture which has all of shared nothing's weaknesses and more.
>>
>>--
>>Daniel Morgan

> 
> 
> Daniel, as usual you posts are nothing but propaganda. Shared nothing
> parallel architecture and RAC (failover recovery) are attempts to solve 2
> completely different business problems. DB2 and Teradata are better in true
> parallel processing, and Oracle is better in failover systems.
> 
> You may not think that a true parallel query environment (what you call
> share nothing) is important, but if you look at the client list of Teradata
> and IBM who have implemented that technology, it would be obvious that you
> are wrong.

I disagree. RAC is intended to solve two entirely different problems. One is fail-over the other is scaling.

If ones purpose is purely fail-over shared nothing is, as you agree, not a solution.

But even with application scaling shared nothing has its weaknesses which is exactly why IBM does not use it on mainframe DB2 implementations. I mentioned those limitations in my original post so no need to repeat them here.

BTW: Facts are not marketing hyerbole. And as I do not work for Oracle, receive no money from Oracle, and have years of DB2 experience I have no partisan axe to grind. If shared nothing was better than shared everything ... IBM would have implemented it with DB2 on all platforms ... they didn't.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 13:25:50 CST