Re: sipping lightly or drinking deeply from the ASM koolaid?

pdxkevinc_at_gmail.com wrote:
> > > SteveThe question I would like to append to this is "has PolyServe patched
> > things up with Oracle?" It wasn't that long ago that Oracle's attitude
> > toward PolyServe made PolyServe a risky choice. I've seen no evidence
> > that anything has changed.
>
> Oracle is hostile to every software player so it wasn't as though
> PolyServe had to "patch things up". We have always done what we do and
> that is to make a solid cluster platform that hosts RAC quite nicely.
> The evidence you might seek, however, comes in 2 forms. First, Oracle
> created the Third Party Cluster Filesystem Validation and Clusterware
> Compatibility Program and second, we went through the testing and are
> listed as a Validated platform in the RAC Technology Compatibility
> Matrix (RTCM) which you can get to through Metalink->Certify
>
> Beyond the Metalink Certify (RTCM), here is a little more background:
> http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/oce/oce_fact_sheet.htm
> http://www.oaktable.net/getFile/139
>
> PolyServe and Oracle are both signatories to TSAnet. There can be no
> finger pointing. I'll put it to you this way, you wont open more calls
> with Oracle support because of PolyServe. On the other hand, you will
> still continue to open loads of TARs with Oracle for all the reasons
> that have nothing to do with PolyServe...

Now let's not let reality get in the way of the discussion here. One of the favorite allegations is that finger pointing will be involved.

Most of those types of allegations are done by "drive by" rumor pushers. It's kind of a well like game.

>
> There are a large number of high end production PolyServe customers
> running RAC (e.g., NW Airlines, Putnam, Gannett Media, Close Premium
> Finance, DoD, etc) and if their day to day production experience was a
> train wreck, don't you think a simple Metalink search would reveal
> that? One of those sites has 100 of our clusters and the smallest of
> those is 10 Nodes (FWIW).
>
Received on Tue Nov 28 2006 - 19:39:47 CST