Re: 10g with HACMP (no RAC)?

From: joel garry <>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 16:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>

On Sep 8, 3:51 pm, Palooka <> wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:19:11 +0100, Palooka <>
> > wrote:
> >> Besides which, there are actually some reasons not
> >> to go with RAC. Firstly, the application vendor doesn't actually support
> >> it.
> > That would be the perfect reason to replace the application.
> > RAC is transparent to the application.
> > If  a vendor states
> > 'We don't support RAC'
> > this likely means 'My application is unscalable and it mightily sucks'
> > Note most application vendors still promote the 'database independent'
> > fairy tale, and a whole lot of so-called DBAs rather manage a mess and
> > get fired in the end, than to set up things professionally.
> > You seem to be no exception to this rule.
> > Your case is lost, yet you continue to defend it.
> > You will notice your case is lost SOON. Let's only pray Herr Weber is
> > there to help you out.
> So the client decides on an application, and we are brought in as
> integrators for a fee of around £2m. We are supposed to turn this down,
> are we, because the client may not have made the best choice?
> As I said, some of us live in the real world.
> Palooka

£2m to bring in someone who asks for a cookbook??? And RAC is too expensive? I tend to come down on the side of "real world," but that just seems an alternate universe.

I don't know if I should say I'm in the wrong business or be glad I'm not in the right business. Sybrand seems to be understating the case.


-- is bogus.
“There's nothing I can see that we did that was out of line.”
Received on Tue Sep 09 2008 - 18:10:51 CDT

Original text of this message