Re: yipeee!

"Mark A" <ma_at_switchboard.net> wrote in message news:<N%bUb.35$nb6.45397_at_news.uswest.net>...
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wroteL
>
> I disagree. RAC is intended to solve two entirely different problems.
> One is fail-over the other is scaling.

Daniel,

Since RAC is intended to "scale out", can you can answer a question that has been puzzling me?

Of its 11 best TPC-H results, all on 9i or 10g, why has Oracle chosen to run only one benchmark under RAC? How come that single (Oracle 10g, 1000GB category) RAC result is easily the worst of all 11 Oracle results?

Why is it that the 10g RAC result is less than half the performance, and over twice the cost, of the *worst* DB2 result - shared nothing of course - in the same 1000GB category?

Let me guess - because benchmarks prove nothing, even when they show a clear pattern.

DG Received on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 18:16:09 CST