Re: Oracle vs DB2 on heavy OLTP loads

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:42:49 -0700
Message-ID: <1116441509.898308@yasure>

dbguy456_at_yahoo.com wrote:

>>Why go for multi-CPU machines?  Or at least the expensive ones with

>
> more than 2 CPU?
> The answer is simple: KISS aka 'Keep It Simple, Student'. Extra level
> of complexity (and a huge one) is not a thing I want to see in such
> demanding environments. As for server pricing - optimum
> CPU-price-performance-wise are 2CPU boxes, but the difference
> (especially considering current pricing for decent storage), is not
> that large to compensate for extra complexity (which means more time to
> support, more risks etc. - plus RAC itself should have certain price
> too) Starting from 4CPU ones upwards pricing tend to be more or less
> linear one (with other factors coming into play); also it is quite
> common model when 8CPU box is assembled from 2 4CPU chassis.

There is nothing complex about maintaining RAC clusters if you learn how.

And the cost savings on hardware with RAC is huge and more than compensates for the cost of the RAC licenses. Consider the following scenario:

Same hardware in dev, test, and prod
Production will, one-to-two years from now, need an 8CPU machine.

Your choice ... price out 3 x 8CPU servers or price out 6 x 2CPU commodity hardware knowing that you can add nodes to prod on demand when required.

Oh did I forget the need for a duplicate of prod. for failover? Sorry. Increase the cost by buying another 8CPU machine: Completely unnecessary with RAC.

BTW: The cost of storage is irrelevant to the conversation. Either way Apple, EMC, IBM, or NetApp is likely getting a large check for disk.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Wed May 18 2005 - 13:42:49 CDT