| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: DB2 Crushes Oracle RAC on TPC-C benchmark
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2005-01-31, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>Mark Townsend wrote: >> >> >>>Mark A wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Now clearly, there are some advantages to the Oracle RAC configuration >>>>that >>>>DB2 does not have, but cost of initial investment or cost of ownership is >>>>not one of them. >>>> >>> >>>I do note (in passing and completely facetiously) that the IBM result >>>has a stunning $13.8 million discount off the nearly $30 million price tag. >>> >>>So at the very least, even the mention of a potential Oracle RAC >>>configuration (perhaps running on Linux) should be good for at least a >>>similar 47% discount on hardware from IBM. Now there is an advantage of >>>an Oracle RAC configuration that even DB2 users can partake of :-P >> >>The balance remaining after that discount, $16.2 million, would buy 4629 >>2 proc 1U servers from CDW for a total of more than 9250 CPUs. Ok ...
Damn right.
> Ignoring that for the moment, you still have the problems of...
>
> You forgot the extra RAC licenses.
What extra RAC licenses?
> You forgot the extra veritas licenses.
Don't take drugs. Veritas is not required for 10g RAC at all. And even with 9i RAC not required for RedHat and some other vendors.
> You forgot the extra DBA manpower for the extra instances.
What would those extra DBAs do other than collect a salary to sit around and watch things running smoothly which is exactly what they are doing.
> You forgot the extra Sysamin manpower for the extra servers.
See the above comment about DBAs.
> You forgot the extra Veritas expertise.
Mentioned that Veritas thing again. Veritas is not required for RAC.
> You forgot the cost to install and cable all of this.
You're right the cost of CAT5 is a real budget buster.
> You forgot the extra datacenter real estate.
All fits into a single rack and takes up far less space than the SMP boxes (2 of them) that would be required to replace them.
> You forgot the extra datacenter infastructure.
Like paying people like you that comment on things of which they obviously have minimal knowledge (Veritas Veritas Veritas).
> You forgot the extra interconnect hardware.
You mean a switch? Ooooh. That's another budget buster.
> You forgot the extra san admin manpower.
What SAN admin power? Do you really think that managing a SAN requires an FTE?
> You forgot the extra network admin manpower.
How?
> Then, once all of that is dealt with you still need to worry about
> RAC actually scaling to that many machines.
I don't. You might because you have demonstrated profound ignorance of the subject. But that's your personal issue ... not mine. Perhaps it hasn't occured to you that Oracle, internally, runs on RAC and their costs went down, not up, when they moved from SMP Sun boxes to Dell, RedHat and RAC.
>>give me the money and 30 days I'll take them on. Anytime ... Anwhere. >>A $13.8 million dollar discount? I don't know how they can walk down the >>street without stopping in every confessional.> not in a profession where you can get arrested for being a charlatain.
>
> That's funny, I was thinking the same of you. It's good that we're
Veritas. Veritas. Veritas.
The rule of holes is that when you find yourself in one you should stop digging.
Where on earth did you get the idea Veritas is required for RAC?
-- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)Received on Fri Feb 04 2005 - 18:34:37 CST
 |
 |