Re: RAC High End Scalability?

In article <b2tg11$771$1_at_news.mch.sbs.de>, "Stephan says...
>
>Hi Michael,
>
>setting up RAC successfully highly depends on whether or not the application
>can be partitioned into logical units (e.g. sales europe/asia/north america)
>or whether you run independent applications on the nodes (e.g. operational
>system and DWH).
>If the nodes access (modify!) the same dataset frequently, RAC is not an
>option without an database/application redesign.

I'm sorry, this just can't be let past. We run our own Apps on RAC without partitioning it and I'm not sure there's many applications more tightly coupled, with shared data, than that. What you say might be true for OPS, but not for RAC. That's one of the major selling points for RAC. Show me an example of an application that doesn't scale well on RAC, and I'll be exceedingly surprised! :)

Pete
>
>But if this is not possible, mssql isn't an option at all. This one
>literally relies on partitioning. The URL
>(http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/features/distpart.asp) mentioned in
>the documents reads:
>
>The Distributed Partitioned Views feature shares the database-processing
>load across a group of servers,
> !!!! by horizontally partitioning the SQL Server 2000 data !!!!
>
>in the first sentence.
>
>It may be true that oracle does not scale well in some (a lot?) of
>scenarios, but I believe mssql to perform even worse.
>
>BTW: TPC-C is partitioned horizontally by design.
>
>Stephan
>
>
>"Michael Harvey" <mgharvey_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:5b945v88h9rg40to39sab6cauio7r855gj_at_4ax.com...
>>
>> ORACLE make lots of claims about the scalability of RAC that I would
>> like to believe.
>>
>> Microsoft recently (late last year) published a paper disputing some
>> of these claims.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/RealityBehind_RAC.pdf
>>
>
>
>

HTH. Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete

SELECT standard_disclaimer, witty_remark FROM company_requirements; Received on Tue Feb 18 2003 - 10:33:54 CST