Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 2xSMP vs RAC for failover - was Re: informix market share

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

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:44:54 -0800
Message-ID: <1133455481.122768@jetspin.drizzle.com>


Serge Rielau wrote:
> 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.

Actually that IS the Oracle marketing message. Stop buying big, expensive, SMP boxes. Instead buy low cost resilient hardware. Build the equivalent of those expensive boat-anchors from components and gain not just equivalent processing power and lower cost but, and a most important ... but ... also gain transparent failover.

>> 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)....

Any technologist that listens to marketing messages and makes the assumption that they are the definitive word is a fool. I would hope one does not spend a decade in this industry only to swoon over the carefully crafted verbiage of some spin doctor.

>> 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've done it numerous times and also use it as an exercise for my advanced students. The price differential is amazingly large.

> 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?)

Veritas, at least from an Oracle standpoint, is irrelevant.

The Oracle technologies would be RAC ... for failover within a cluster, DataGuard for failover between clusters ... RMAN for the ability to do single block recovery ... and ASM for mirroring.

> Of course without federation. Federation is for scale out which we just
> took of the table.

No. I took federation off the table because DB2 federates data on all of its systems except the mainframe and I didn't want a mainframe solution put up as a contender against Linux/UNIX solutions. Though given the cost of the hardware, maintenance agreements, and operators from a financial perspective it would make a juicy comparison.

> 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

So here's what I get when I do it ... looking at just the hardware, operating system, and maintenance agreement cost.

I can build a 2-node, 4-CPU RAC cluster including 3 years of 7x24 maintenance, including rail kits for under $6K USD. And with that, using Oracle Standard Edition, I get transparent application failover  (RAC and TAF) included.

Now price it out with 4-CPU boxes ... well if you want failover you need to buy two of them. So now you price out 2x4-CPU boxes with 7x24 maintenance and rail kits and tell me if you can beat $6K USD. And 1/2 of that CPU power and 1/2 of that investment is sitting idle in the corner in case something goes terribly wrong with the first expensive box.

I currently have 2 x 10-node clusters (two 20CPU RAC clusters) operating in Japan one at the main data center another at a remote backup location. Cost of hardware ... $60K USD for all 40 CPUs. Compare that $60K USD against the cost of two 20 CPU boxes. And feel free to round down in the thousands place.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Thu Dec 01 2005 - 10:44:54 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US