Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> Well, let me just ask you this then. Given that OPS first made an
> (admittedly rather faltering) appearance in Oracle 6, and that there was
> therefore the best part of 10 years' development effort to get OPS to where
> it was in 8.1.7, do you honestly believe that they trashed the entire lot
> and started with an utterly clean slate in order to get RAC out of the door?

On the clustering part no? On the cache fusion part yes.

> Particularly when you might care to bear in mind that cache fusion actually
> made an appearance in 8.1.7 regarding consistent read buffer transfers.
>
> But as a mere humble trainer, it was nevertheless strictly verboten to
> discuss RAC as a developement to OPS. I imagine the particular developers
> you plied with mind-altering liquids were under similar injunctions from the
> top.

Given other parts of the, how can I say this gently, 'wide ranging' conversation, I don't think it would have mattered what they had been told to say and not say. And there was a lot of evidence of, how can I say this gently, 'a lack of inhibition'.

In other words ... yeah I believed them. And that is not my nature.

> I realise it won't be worth anything to you, but I'll give you a categorical
> assurance that the codebase for RAC is the same as the one for OPS, with
> enhancements of course.
>
> HJR
Enhancements don't turn block pinging into block sharing. That's quite a bit more than an enhancement. Have you seen the huge number of patents Oracle filed on RAC to keep others from duplicating it?

-- 
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)