EscVector wrote:
> DA Morgan wrote:
>> mccmx_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> The biggest issue I have seen with RAC on Windows they didn't even test.
>>>> The point of RAC is not how much water can I push through the pipe. The
>>>> point of RAC is FAILOVER.
>>>>
>>>> My experience with Windows and failover is that what happens with Linux,
>>>> subsecond, can take up to 25 seconds with Windows which is not acceptable.
>>> Fair point but the whole point of the document was to compare
>>> performance of Windows vs Linux, not failover.
>> But that's not RAC and thus it is meaningless.
>>
>>> I would lke to have seen the comparison done without the added
>>> complexity of RAC involved.
>>>
>>> Matt
>> I would too. But again the test is meaningless except as marketing
>> fodder for Microsoft. Which Linux packages were installed? I don't
>> know. Which kernel parameters were set? I don't know. What were the
>> Oracle initialization parameters? I don't know. Integers are not data.
>> --
>> 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
>
> Performance is not linear. Permutations compound dissimilarities.
> What works in one environment may not work in another. Windows may
> perform better in one instance and not in another. Each environment is
> as unique as there are opinions on this board. The choice should boil
> down to which one adds the most benefit to the company.
Agreed right up until the point of the test is Oracle RAC. If you are
testing RAC then you must test:
- Performance
- Scalability
- Failover
- Load balancing (not that I can see how this could be different)
These are the essential features. That you have equal performance but
failover is glacial means bad-news for the SLA.
--
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 Tue Jan 23 2007 - 11:58:03 CST
