Re: Oracle 9i RAC vs Hardware clustering (like HACMP)

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:57:32 -0700
Message-ID: <1098251802.572318@yasure>

Dusan Bolek wrote:

> DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1098159226.909866_at_yasure>...
>

>>Cost
>>Fail-over
>>
>>RAC will cost far less. I recently priced an identical system Sun vs
>>Dell. Same number of CPUs. Sun was $750K ... Dell/NetApp ... 1/3 the
>>price after counting the cost of the RAC licenses to Oracle.
>>
>>Remember without RAC ... to purchase backup capability requires
>>duplicating everything. And even with that you won't have subsecond
>>failover.

>
>
> Well, it depends. RAC could be very cost effective using Oracle 10G on
> Linux, but not everyone wants to move to 10G yet. Using 9i and AIX,
> RAC would be more costly because you still need to pay for HACMP as a
> cluster software and you need to pay 50% for RAC Option. Because of
> Oracle prices, the higher cost of HW (that can't be utilised on 100%
> because of active-passive HACMP setup) is usually less important than
> the Oracle related costs.
>
> --
> Dusan Bolek

Incorrect. IBM is selling a lot of their hardware into shops with NetApp and there is no need to purchase anything else: Even with 9i. And you don't need to pay $1 for a RAC option.

Feel free to contact Thomas Reich (tjreich_at_us.ibm.com) or David Foushee (dfoushee_at_us.ibm.com) to find out more about IBM with NetApp.

So while commodity hardware like HP and Dell with Linux are nice ... they are not necessary to achieve a huge financial benefit.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Wed Oct 20 2004 - 00:57:32 CDT