2xSMP vs RAC for failover - was Re: informix market share

From: Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:09:24 -0500
Message-ID: <3v74atF149nmlU1@individual.net>

DA Morgan wrote:
> Serge Rielau wrote:
>

>> *chuckle*And there always will be because SMP scales better than RAC 
>> (more CPUs needed) and RAC is cited as a major contributer to Linux 
>> licenses... it ain't free.

>
>
> Of course if you also want transparent failover with that big SMP box
> you get to buy at least one more of them.
Of course. But that wou;d be the add Orcale doen't show.

> From my experience only a small percentage of Oracle customers buy RAC
> for scalability. The vast majority for transparent failover.
That matches what I hear. Not what Oracle says of course (that ad again)....

> Want to
> cost it out against alternative technologies with equivalent features?
> Oh and without having to manually federate the data? Wouldn't want you
> to forget that part.

Actually yes. Pricing out a failover solution would be fun. So we're talking 2 SMP boxes with failover vs. the equivalent commondity RAC cluster, including switches, disk failover, software. I'm no expert in failover. Can I presume the core contenders are IDS with HDR (this is an Informix/Oracle thread), Dataguard and RAC (what about Veritas?)
Of course without federation. Federation is for scale out which we just took of the table.
I'm no hardware guy, but I take it the group will keep us honest. And I truly want to learn this stuff.

I took the liberty to rename the thread.

Cheers
Serge

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 SQL Compiler Development
IBM Toronto Lab

Received on Wed Nov 30 2005 - 20:09:24 CST