Re: Where is Oracle’s Grid ?

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1072745492.601747_at_yasure...

>
> Short of purchasing PeopleSoft, SAP, Siebel, Baan, etc. how?
> Specifically how can Oracle do that?

Dunno. Maybe look at what DB2 has done and learn? They don't seem to have the same problems, I wonder why...

> question Ford is responsible for the quality of care. And I would argue
> that this is analogous to buying the Oracle database and putting Oracle
> Apps on top of it. In that case Oracle is wholly responsible.

Let's not go there. Oracle Apps have been guilty of plenty of horror performance stories over the years. Not to mention clear violations of 1st-normal-form of relational design...

> But what you are suggesting is more like I buy a Ford and take it to the
> Texaco station down the street. The mechanic there buys a carburator
> from a parts-house and does a lousy job of installing it on my car.
> Therefore Ford is responsible for the quality of the part my mechanic
> purchased and installed?

I don't agree with this analogy at all. When you buy a 3rd party app, you are NOT modifying Oracle in any way, shape or format. What you are doing is using it in its capacity to use applications against it. When you stick in a carby, you ARE modifying the beast. THEN it's your problem!

A better analogy is that when I buy a Ford truck and put a load on it, I darn well expect it to be able to carry the weight. Or else stop calling it a truck.

> How can you hold Oracle responsible for the horrible design, coding, and
> deployment of someone that only builds after-market bolt-on parts?

I don't. But when Oracle claims its tuning toolset is capable of doing so and it clearly isn't, there is something wrong...

> What Oracle sells does fix things. But only if someone bothers to read
> the documentation, learn how to use it, and then deploys it in an
> appropriate manner.

Nope. Sorry, it doesn't. Maybe in 10g and that is still to be proven in the conditions of the "coal face" out there. Don't forget: it is NOT yet released!
What is in previous versions might be good for writing tuning books about, but it's unusable for any serious tuning of 3rd party crap stuff so far.

As for design, we all know if WE had designed it with all the proper features, it would run faster. Unfortunately, the rest of the world doesn't share that opinion. Let's get back to reality.

> I understand yours and other people's angst. I have had more than my
> share of run-ins with Siebel and other app vendors. I've even had
> run-ins with accounting firms that incorrectly installed Oracle's own
> applications.

Bingo! Yet, do you hear Oracle for ONCE putting some of those accounting firms' nose out of joint? No way Josay!

>
> But before you pull the trigger I'd suggest taking more careful aim.
> Oracle has made plenty of mistakes: Metalink is full of them. But you
> should not blame Oracle for the mistake your firm made buying that
> after-market carburator and having your next door neighbor's teenage son
> install it.

And maybe Oracle should not make the mistake of blaming the poor sods who have to cop the crud dished out by these makers: the production DBAs out there. Who have over the years put up with the rubbish from EVERYONE including Oracle and are now being pushed out of a job by Oracle's marketing.

And being blamed left right and centre as the root of all evil. It's not that they don't know what to do or don't want to do it. It's that they are NOT allowed to do it.

Maybe Oracle should start encouraging vendors to let DBAs do their job instead of just acting as trained monkeys? I know this will stuff their marketing plan to sell trained monkeys at a premium. But that's a plan that WILL backfire badly.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam