Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1079292129.767001_at_yasure...
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> > "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
>
> The stuff in you say in 8i was an attempt to fix the problem before
> they threw in the towel.

Whatever. I know for a fact it wasn't like that at all. But you are welcome to start your own myths if you wish.

Regards
HJR Received on Sun Mar 14 2004 - 14:35:29 CST