Re: Oracle Internet Directory experience?

From: GreyBeard <Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:49:56 GMT
Message-Id: <pan.2005.03.17.13.51.07.369430@gmail.com>

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:04:33 +0100, Frank van Bortel wrote:

> GreyBeard wrote:

>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:58:13 +0100, Frank van Bortel wrote:
>>
>>

>>>Ah - yes. Uptime (more 9's), not performance (although I could
>>>imagine getting thru to one of twelve OID servers may be faster
>>>than getting thru to that one.)

>>
>>
>> Please 'splain more.
>>
>> Since database can be RAC'd, you get serious uptime from OiD that doesn't
>> need dup'd big servers. Add the fact that OiD servers can then go on
>> small boxes scattered where-ever and talk to the RAC'd data store via
>> SQLNet, and these can then be load balanced thru h/w, etc. ... I don't
>> follow your comment.
>>
>> /FGB

> 
> Well - you described it perfectly for someone who doesn't
> follow. :)
> I just left out RAC in my mental picture (which I should have
> drawn to the audience): kinda like HTTP server farms: all small
> boxes doing the same (and OiD is not a large database!), h/w load
> balancing - just the picture you describe (without RAC)

My bad. I misread your comment and thought you were dissing uptime. Didn't realize you were expressing concern about performance.

Yes, for small loads (say, under a million entries) database lookups can be slower than flat file LDAP. That was a significant problem under 8i, but there have been a lot of performance improvements since then.

And you are right about having multiple servers helping performance, even with a high server to machine ratio.

> 
> My experience is with OiD (the 8i version), though. Sniffed 9i, but got
> bitten by the Wallet manager.

<whine>
Oracle spent a lot of effort running hard on this product, and pulling up their socks while running. Customers wanted a more Netscape-y product (more Netscape-like extensions than Netscape had ... not proprietary, but fully conformant to Netscape's proprietary extensions) and similarily a more Active Directory-y product, that was faster but cheaper, more reliable but had more bells and whistles. </whine>

In the market competition during the 8i and early 9i days, I also noticed a number of features and capability extensions that didn't seem 'quite mature'. <g>

Based on my observation and experience, I'd suggest things have improved significantly in 10g. More completion of existing (esp. core) features, fewer new ones.

/FGB Received on Thu Mar 17 2005 - 06:49:56 CST