Re: Serious article on comparison between MS SQL Server 2005 Yukon and Oracle 10g

Daniel,

I believe that you misunderstood that particular paragraph. It is rather clear that the authors understand the difference between RAC
and Cold Failover,although it might not be easy due to the poor grammar.

They specifically state that a cold failover of SQL server is sometimes
faster than a TAF Reconfiguration of a RAC cluster, which in itself is rather surprising considering that RAC is advertised
as a superior high availability solution.

There is also no statement of precise reconfiguration time for RAC only that
HP Sun Cluster reconfiguration time is 10-30 seconds.

I have some experience with RAC and the reconfiguration process is not immediate, to say the least. It of course depends on the size of the redo logs and the extent of recovery which needs to be performed. If the database has normal size redo logs (mine has redo logs of 200MB) and a heavy transaction load there will be a significant delay for reconfiguration when one of the nodes fails.

So I guess your database has redo logs of 10MB, no transaction load or some very fast hardware if reconfiguration takes 2 seconds.

Good for You,
Most of us are not so lucky.

DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1100914098.879473_at_yasure>...
> John Miller wrote:
>
> > Very good paper! Learned a lot. Frankly, I didn't see the comparison
> > between 10g and Yukon yet. This is a first one and such detailed!!
> > Great work.
> > I would recommend developers of Oracle and SQL Server to read this.
> > You have to pay $$ for this kind of documentation, but WisdomForce
> > giving this away, which is nice.
> >
> > John
>
> Why would you say that you "learned a lot" when it contains huge
> errors of fact clearly demonstrating that the authors do not
> understand the subject matter at a level necessary to do the
> comparison in the first place?
>
> For example ... they don't understand the difference between TAF
> and cold failover ... they compare RAC to SQL Server when the
> actual comparison should be DataGuard to SQL Server.
>
> If I didn't have such a big mouth you'd have left me speechless.
Received on Sat Nov 20 2004 - 06:03:37 CST