Re: Oracle 10g RAC performance

On Apr 28, 2:42 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:48:53 -0700, hpuxrac wrote:
>
> >> There's a reasonable smart guy who wrote "Why you probably don't need
> >> RAC" ... there's somebody who is clued in to the real world.
>
> > Pushing RAC to everybody is, at least in my opinion, a very dangerous
> > policy yet Oracle is doing just that. RAC is not a solution for
> > everything. One would think that they would learn from IBM, DEC and
> > Microsoft but, apparently, not so. I usually explain the concept like
> > this: if you have a car capable of taking 4 people across 55 miles in
> > 1 hour, then adding a second car, chained to the first car, bumper to
> > bumper, will not help you with taking 4 people across 110 miles in 1 hour.
> > Buying a faster car (and a radar detector) will.
> > That is precisely what people are trying to do: making their apps running
> > twice as fast by adding a second node, chained to the first in bumper to
> > bumper fashion.
>
> I would agree that "pushing" RAC is not the solution. But providing
> information to customers on what RAC is and what it does is an
> invaluable service in a world where management and customer expectations
> are often 7x24x365.
>
> If nothing elsee, the implementation of RAC everywhere, will force a lot
> of companies selling junk to clean up their schemas and their code.

Clueless again eh?

Try reading Mogen's recent post about high availability.

>
> While I agree with Mogens on many things ... RAC is quite often a good
> solution and Windows quite often is not.

People that really need RAC are a very small percentage. For what it does for high availability there is nothing else like it in the marketplace.

People that may attempt to implement it and actually hurt their uptime in the long run ... no shortage of experiences like that going around. Received on Sat Apr 28 2007 - 18:49:22 CDT