Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1079267535.385345_at_yasure...
> 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.

Ah. I think that is a bit of a, shall I say, "clarification" on your part.

> > 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?

But as I said, block transfer across the interconnect wasn't even new in 9i, because it was there in 8.1.7 for consistent read transfers.

Or did you miss that bit?

All they did in 9i compared to 8.1.7 was to make block transfer across the interconnect the (default) mechanism for all block transfers rather than just some.

Do I believe that at some point new code had to be cut to make any form of interconnect-based block transfer possible? Obviously. But it wasn't brand new in 9i, because the principle had been established before hand.

HJR Received on Sun Mar 14 2004 - 12:35:02 CST