| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle RAC for scalability or High Availability only
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>That argument cuts both ways. If we're talking about would-a, could-a, >>should-a and might-a scenarios, the opposite is also true - >> >>your existing environment might have hit the limit on the box' network >>access and you need to add the extra switch anyway; you might have spare
And precisely where did you gather this information? Not once in all of the documentation I have reviewed, nor for any cluster I've ever built, has higher performance been part of the spec: Not once.
Had you said high availability I'd have agreed. Had you said incremental scale-out I'd have agreed.
All I see in your posts is that you don't like RAC. My guess being because you either have no experience or have experience with an older version.
> and
> latency requirements. The network and storage gear required for RAC will
> more than likely be at least one notch above what you would need for the
> rest of your enterprise in general.
This, again, needs to be challenged. I am not aware of any such requirement. And if you are buying the infiniBanK marketing hyperbole then you might wish to re-examine it.
> You're not just buying into "more" you are also buying into
> inherently higher end equipment at the same time. Since it is an
> HA solution, you are also doubling everything.
Last production RAC cluster I built ... 10 nodes, 20 CPUs was done, including storage for under $100K US including 3 year support agreement, rail kits, everything. Get us the comparison price for two (because you need one for failover) 20 CPU boxes from the vendor of your choice.
>
> You're oversimplifying the costs involved and glossing over
> the none too trivial costs of SAN, switches, HBAs and robust GigE
> network gear. A robust nfs server is also no trivial matter either
> (if you choose to try and avoid SAN).
Hardly. SAN and NAS are used by everybody in corporate computing these days. Everyone is storing on EMC, NetApp, LSI, etc. The cost is a nit. GigE is hardly expensive. Where are you getting your information? Heck I personally own four GigE switches and I'm hardly qualified financially to be an Oracle EE customer.
>>storage or access concurrency capacity due to scrapped projects, >>foresight, planning; etc.> of the technology stack invovled.
>
> You're pretty much ignoring a critical and expensive part
I don't think so. I think Hans is absolutely accurate and you are working with either very old information or a prejudice against RAC or both.
-- Daniel A. Morgan http://www.psoug.org damorgan_at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)Received on Tue Feb 28 2006 - 15:23:00 CST
 |
 |