Re: RAC or Large SMP...?

From: DA Morgan <>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:12:55 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Tim X wrote:
> DA Morgan <> writes:

>> At Oracle OpenWorld in 2005 I built a 24 node cluster on the third
>> level of Moscone West. We had someone from Sun price it out using
>> SMP and RAC. The difference in price, for just one comparable SMP
>> machine as compared to our one RAC cluster was in excess of $250,000
>> USD. That pays for a lot of training.
>> There is a word that describes companies with a single large SMP
>> box at a single location. That word is "vulnerable."

> Our analysis of costs and ROI came out about the same, plus we found
> that if we hit the max load, adding another large SMP box was going to
> be a lot more cost and would likely add a lot more power than needed
> than adding another node to the RAC. As we have seen fairly steady
> increase in processing power requirements rather than large jumps, RAC
> seemed a better choice and we get the additional risk mitigation.
> I'm also not convinced that the fewer servers are easier to administer
> arguement is as valid these days. This was certainly true in the past,
> but modern package management has become quite sophisticated.
> Managing larger numbers of servers dedicated to the same role isn't that
> much of an overhead anymore. At least we haven't seen a substantial
> increase in administration since moving to RAC. In fact, the added
> fault tolerance has reduced impact and stress on staff when hardware
> failures occur.
> Tim

And one argument I didn't make but you reminded me of ... try to perform a rolling upgrade on an SMP box.

It may not be perfect with RAC but I can guarantee you it is impossible with a single server.

Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
Received on Fri Oct 10 2008 - 08:12:55 CDT

Original text of this message