Re: Oracle 8 drive configuration

bdbafh_at_gmail.com wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> Perhaps you are pushing an agenda just a little too much here.
> Why don't you post that over in the .marketplace group instead?
>
> -bdbafh

Because I'm not selling it and my point was purely technical. If the OP wants to stay with RAID5, because it is the least costly option. But can't with their current technology due to performance. There is technology that provides equal performance between RAID5 and RAID0+1. I gave them the that information. What they choose to do with it is not my business nor if they called me on the phone and wanted to buy it does the University of Washington sell hardware.

Would you have had a problem if I suggested a 4 node 2CPU RAC cluster rather than a single 8-way box? Would you claim I was pushing RAC licenses? What if I suggested NetApp NFS rather than Solaris with Veritas? Because if you consider them "an agenda" then I've been doing those things for years and never once heard a peep out of you or anyone else.

Yes I am going to say Apple from time-to-time. But only when it is appropriate as a specific technical solution to a specific problem as I did in this case. I don't own a single share of Apple stock. Heck I don't even own an iPOD.

So if I have an agenda it is, at least to me, rather clear. Oracle is pushing something called the Low Cost Resilient Storage Initiative.

Here's the link:
http://www.oracle.com/technology/deploy/availability/htdocs/lowcoststorage.html

Under that initiative Oracle has been buying a lot of Apple hardware for its own data center in Redwood Shores. Telling people about what is an important Oracle initiative and how to implement it is my sole agenda. If Oracle changes what it thinks is best ... or if another vendor comes up with a superior technology ... expect me to talk about it too.

I hope this explanation is sufficient.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)