Re: DB Appliance: the attack of the clones
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:50:42 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <pan.2011.09.25.23.50.42_at_gmail.com>
On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 15:57:04 -0700, John Hurley wrote:
> Mladen:
>
> # Well, I guess you could also add an additional RAC node to your
> dedicated servers?
>
> Ummm ... not if you are NOT running RAC?
>
> Still a believer that for many configurations and setups you probably
> don't need RAC.
>
> Wish someone would write something about that subject! Oh wait a minute
> ...
Shakespeare once wrote that there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. A guy by the name of Mogens lives there, and he's no good. Once upon a time he wrote an article which starts like this:
You Probably Don’t Need RAC
If you’ve been holidaying in Siberia or similar places for about a year, you have probably not talked to an Oracle Sales rep yet about RAC. But you will no doubt find that there’s a voice mail waiting for you when you turn your mobile phone on again after returning home from the vacation. RAC is being pushed very hard by Oracle. You will get high availability, incredible scalability, a much improved personal life, the ability to partition workloads, buy cheap Linux servers and what have you. It sounds pretty good. How can anyone say no to that kind of offer?
The article name is "You Probably Don’t Need RAC" and it was extremely popular in its heyday, much to the chagrin of a guy named Larry...... Times, however, are changing and I am considering writing an article named "you probably do need RAC, although you might not realize that". Namely in case of web supporting databases, 99.9% uptime requirement is almost always mandatory. And that means RAC.....
-- http://mgogala.byethost5.comReceived on Sun Sep 25 2011 - 18:50:42 CDT