Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

From: Howard J. Rogers <>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 09:47:04 +1100
Message-ID: <4056326a$0$18490$>

"Hans Forbrich" <> wrote in message news:QJp5c.84533$Ff2.69649_at_clgrps12...
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> >
> > Now this is where it gets interesting, because my list of RAC benefits
> > read:
> >
> > 1. High availability
> > 2. Scale Up (do more work in the same time)
> > 3. Speed Up (do the same work in less time)
> Can we add
> 4. Rolling Upgrades
> that is being flogged with RAC in 10g? I realize there are likely a
> number of caveats to that 'capability', but if even somewhat true, this
> has got to be a real benefit for some shops.

That is undoubtedly true. And I confess to being a little behind the times on this whole 10g business, so in all my comments about RAC so far, i have had 9i in mind. It is perfectly possible that as future releases occur, new functionality may creep in (such as this nugget) which makes RAC far more compelling.

> BTW - The majority of customers I see have 2-4 CPU 'SMP' (ignoring the
> local telco with significantly larger - up to 64 - processor systems). I
> have to agree that most customers I see do not need the HA or
> scalability [theoretical] benefits of RAC - yet. So I tend to agree
> with your argument as valid across my customer base.
> Based on previous discussions, Daniel's customer base hass proven to be
> significantly different from mine. Therefore he, and they, apparently
> can quickly see benefit from RAC.
> <speculation>
> When I worked for Oracle (I saw Oracle8, Oracle8i, Oracle9i and
> Oracle9iR2 released), we were strongly encouraged not to say (or even
> imply) that RAC is an upgrade to OPS. The water-cooler reasoning
> included: OPS had such a poor reputation that marketing wanted to
> separate RAC from OPS in customers' minds. (Other such talk centered
> around price differences between OPS and RAC.)
> However, the same water-cooler discussions did conclude that code and/or
> algorithms from OPS were kept where appropriate, and we had a lot of fun
> speculating what 'appropriate' meant.
> </speculation>
> /Hans

Thanks Hans. I took this offline with Daniel, and your comments merely confirm much of what I mentioned my experience to have been, and for exactly the same reason: mentioning OPS would have raised customer resistance levels, because OPS was generally known to be in the "too hard" basket. My source on this wasn't just a water cooler, however!

HJR Received on Mon Mar 15 2004 - 16:47:04 CST

Original text of this message