Re: yipeee!

From: dba <dba_at_pleasedontspam.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 01:28:57 GMT
Message-ID: <t5CUb.39586$%93.9808713@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>

Then where are the benchmarks and real customer references to prove it? Where are the examples of this wonderful technology displacing NCR and IBM shared nothing implementations because it scales better?

I'll take the stocks and bonds.

DBA Daniel Morgan wrote:
> Database Guy wrote:
>

>> Daniel seems to think otherwise. He clearly feels that Oracle's
>> allegedly faster recover from node failures outweighs its
>> less-than-half-speed RAC performance under BAU circumstances (i.e.
>> nodes working). I can't understand why Oracle nodes crash so much, but
>> it's not a product I know well. Hopefully someone else will explain.
>>
>>
>> DG

>
>
> I don't think nodes crash often: But all hardware, all operating
> systems, all platforms, and all software does have problems from
> time-to-time. Reading your post someone with little or no experience
> might be tempted to believe that somehow one vendor's RDBMS is more
> likely to cause a CPU to die than another's: Pure nonsense. All machines
> lose CPUs. All machines lose RAM. Computers are not perpetual motion
> machines. And downtime has a real cost in $.
>
> If you truly believe that hardware never crashes I presume you also
> don't do nightly backups. In other words ... thanks for the hyperbole.
>
> And if you truly believe that in the real-world RAC scaling at 128 nodes
> gives less than 50% of the performance of shared nothing scaling at 128
> nodes I have some stocks and bonds I'd like to sell you.
>
Received on Thu Feb 05 2004 - 19:28:57 CST