And where is the long lists of reference customers that are scaling RAC
to many TBs, and beyond 8 or 16 nodes?
DBA
Database Guy wrote:
> "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 - 19:41:28 CST
