Re: 10g RAC design options

DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote:
> Nothing like? Are you serious? The differences are the differences
> between purchasing a Ford or a Toyota. How hard is it for a mechanic
> that knows one to learn how to repair the other?

I really don't want to start another DBA vs. sysadmin flamewar here, but I do in fact think that this is the DBA equivalent of some sysadmin's treating DBA like they were experts on glorified CSV files: Wrong, and slightly insulting.

Just because the interface to the end-user (and here, the DB is just another userland process) is similar doesn't mean the internals are much similar in many cases.

To use your analogy, the cars might be similar to use, and in fact they are similar internally.

But how would the situation be if the cars were similar to drive, but when opening the hood, the Ford admi^Wmechanic sees a fusion reactor in the Toyota? I'd advise him to step back.

And in the interest of not starting a Linux/Solaris flamewar, I won't say which I think is *sooo* 20th century and which has the fusion engine. It's obvious anyway. ;)

>>>Choosing Solaris because it is what you know is like sticking with COBOL >>>because it is what you know. I'd rethink this concept.

This is a little mean, given the prestige of COBOL. You might want to rethink your position regarding Solaris, at the very least Solaris 10/x64.

Not that I don't love Macs, too, but they don't scale internally (and sometimes it's the communications overhead that kills the App), and they sometimes hide a little more than I'd like from the User (not that there isn't a way around that, esp. when X is installed :)).

Oh, and no servers with redundant power supplies. In case Oracle RAC isn't the *only* thing you do, *ever*, this is a bit unacceptable outside arthouse video shops where some hippie just has to fetch another latte until the techie replaced the PS (to remain a bit stereotypical here).

Yours, Bernd Received on Mon Jul 11 2005 - 04:22:09 CDT