Re: DB2 Crushes Oracle RAC on TPC-C benchmark

Mark A wrote:

> So I assumed you were talking about partitioned
> databases when you mentioned the SP2.

You assumed wrong.

My point was that at one time IBM had a business argument that said 4 or 8 way machines clustered together was an interesting architectural choice. They no longer seem to say this.

> HA is relevant to this discussion because the main advantage of Oracle RAC
> is high availability,

Why do you make this claim ? I ask because you have previously acknowledged that this is not the main advantage at all, at least, as claimed by Oracle. I quote

"Oracle markets RAC as an architecture that scales well with lots of cheap nodes in an OLTP environment."

You are obviously aware of the value proposition. So I guess you are discounting this as not true/realizable somehow ? If so, why ?

> When considering cost of ownership, the single node cost versus the 16 node
> cost should not be overlooked. Many outsourcing companies charge by node for
> administration services (network, UNIX admin, and DB admin). Normally they
> charge about $1000 per month per node, regardless of node size. So unless
> one is using RAC for its HA benefits, it is probably not cost competitive.

Pure hokum. In this case it's the outsourcing company that is not cost competitive, not the RAC deployment. Time to get a better outsourcing company. Received on Sat Jan 29 2005 - 20:01:59 CST