Re: DB Buffer Cache Size

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<412ae367$0$3928$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Noons wrote:
>
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
> > news:<412a8c87$0$8833$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> >
> >> Buying new hardware when it is not actually required strikes me as an
> >> unreasonable (as in, irrational) thing to do. It may not fix the problem
> >> up in the long-term, and is therefore not actually truly affordable.
> >
> > and yet, this has been the mantra of hardware makers for the last
> > 30 years. "Hardware is cheap, people are expensive" is the rule.
> > The mantra was invented by IBM: wonder of wonders, a hardware maker.
> >
> > It's as wrong as it can be: witness the enormous bottom lines and
> > profits of hardware makers compared to consultant or contractor
> > suppliers.
> >
> > What the proponents of this "hardware is cheap" argument NEVER explain
> > is that a hardware upgrade is NEVER cheap nor simple. In 99.99999%
> > of the cases, it involves some very expensive additional upgrade
> > (new motherboard, new memory, new chassis, new this, new that)
> > and some serious disruption to the production stream (you can't
> > just walk to a box and plonk a new chassis). And it requires heavy
> > and expensive human resourcing.
> >
> > All that somehow magically ends up disguised in a marketing dinner, or
> > other suitable kickback to the idiot who authorises the hardware upgrade.
> > Of course hardware upgrades are "cheap"!
> >
> > The more things change, the more they stay the same...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Even the lowest end of town must known that 10K today, plus 10K next
> >> year, plus 10K the year after is not a 'quick-and-cheap' alternative to
> >> paying 15K-right-now-and-that's-all.
> >
> > Ah, but you see: the 10k here and there is already budgeted for and has
> > been accepted as a way of life. People expenses however are cost-cutting
> > items: that means they are never on budget, they are always extras.
> > In the bean counter mentality, "extras := $$$$, budget != n*$$$$".
> >
> > The whole thing is ridiculous. The amount of waste in IT with all
> > this "hardware-centric" approach has only increased in the last
> > 30 years. I had this very same discussion yonks ago in
> > Canopus/Compuserve, when NT came out and the "tuning-du-jour" was: "add
> > memory". Somehow, the true cost of adding that memory never was accounted
> > for.
> >
> > It's the way this stupid industry operates. Nothing
> > we can do to change it. Other than find clients with half a
> > brain and stick with them. The others, hopefully Darwin will
> > take care of them. So far, it's worked.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nuno Souto
> > wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam
>
> I enjoy it when we agree. It makes me think I must have been right!!

If hardware makers are so profitable, where are Gateway and DEC, er, COMPAQ, er HP... http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/investor/financials/quarters/2004/q3pre.html "Although we are satisfied with our performance in Personal Systems, Imaging and Printing, Software and Services, these solid results were overshadowed by unacceptable execution in Enterprise Servers and Storage. We therefore are making immediate management changes. We are also accelerating our margin improvement plans in this business. With these changes, we expect our server and storage business to return to profitability in the fourth quarter," said Carly Fiorina, HP chairman and chief executive officer.

It's only profitable where it is _not_ commodity. Everything is driven towards commoditization when not protected as intellectual property. Darwin is sucking on the wrong end of the shotgun.

But yes, it is ridiculous. So we tell people the right way, and get paid to do it elseways.

And IBM wins the monopoly game with patents.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
And I'd hate to hear if they were _not_ being diplomatic:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/23/world/main637643.shtml