Daniel Morgan wrote:
> Michael Austin wrote:
>
>> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>>
>>> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1087421232.498660_at_yasure...
>>>
>>>> The main consideration I would think would be the overhead of
>>>> federating
>>>> data for DB2. The more data the more difficult and time consuming and
>>>> the fact that losing nodes with RAC is an inconvience ... with DB2 you
>>>> have a lot more to worry about ... and mean time between failures goes
>>>> down, not up, as you add nodes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be impressed with a RAC 'scalability' solution that didn't have
>>> higher
>>> downtime than an appropriately sized single node equivalent. More
>>> complexity
>>> = less screwups is an equation with which I am unfamiliar :) The same of
>>> course applies to IBM clustered solutions.
>>>
>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> If I understand the correct programming of a RAC application is to
>> have a connection to multiple nodes in the cluster simultaneously and
>> if there is a failure, the transaction continues unscathed on another
>> node in the cluster. I have seen this demonstrated to be true. So,
>> what this should mean is that even though you may have a node crash,
>> your application AND database AND transactions will survive with no
>> "downtime" experienced by the end user. The application and database
>> is available 100% or as near 100% as you can get...
>>
>> According to Oracle marketing and technical folks (2 years ago), this
>> really only worked as advertised on 2 platforms. Can you guess which
>> ones they were??
>>
>> You mentioned that you have a multi-node Linux cluster using a
>> NAS-head for disk access... Can you provide me a pointer to the
>> details of the complete configuration? I am not opposed to learning
>> new configurations and platforms. What do you see as it's weaknesses
>> and strong-points.
>>
>> Michael Austin.
>
>
> I have 8 HP DL360 dual proc servers running RedHat EL AS 3 update 2.
> They each NFS mount a NetApp F810 Filer Head with an 8GB RAM cache
> connected to a tray with 1.2TB of disk.
>
> We use the Oracle TAF demo running on a workstation as the load and
> shutdown nodes by either pulling the power cord or doing a SHUTDOWN
> ABORT. Transactions seamlessly continue after less than one second.
So which is correct? HJR says that "transactions" don't survice only
the select statements. Howard, isn't a select statement ALWAYS a part of
a transaction? Daniel, just curious, but have you tested the durability
and survivability of "transactions" and what were those finding?
Example: Bank transaction moving $$$ from one account to another... and
yanking the power cord in the middle etc...
Michael Austin.
Received on Fri Jun 18 2004 - 13:56:43 CDT
