JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2006-06-23, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> Redundant storage arrays huh?
>> With standalone too if you value your data.
>>
>>> Suddenly, RAC isn't looking so cheap anymore.
>> Put up your numbers and I'll put up mine. Lets compare systems.
>>
>> Work with 12CPUs, load balancing, transparent failover that can
>> guarantee 99.99+% availability, and the ability to perform rolling
>> upgrades.
>
> Again, you're ignoring the storage infastructure part of
> the equation. Even an enterprise grade NFS implementation (from
> the one and only one supported NFS vendor) is not going to be
> cheap. The complexity you're trying to push out of the main server
> is going straight into the storage hardware.
>
> Even ignoring the more expensive storage, just the extra
> cost of RAC itself and the subsequent support costs are going to
> equal in price to a midrange Sun server and it's duplicate.
I'm ignoring nothing. Storage arrays are storage arrays are storage
arrays. Yes they cost money. And that cost does not change whether using
them for stand-alone or RAC. Nor does it change whether you use a single
12 CPU machine or 6x2 or 4x3 architecture.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
Received on Mon Jun 26 2006 - 17:28:28 CDT
