Bob Jones wrote:
> "HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.08.23.56.33.968323_at_telus.net...
>
>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:40:48 +0000, Bob Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"HansF" <News.Hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message
>>>news:pan.2005.12.08.18.31.00.929051_at_telus.net...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:
>>>>
>>>>08:12 +0000, Bob Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>If you are building a RAC cluster ... more than 4 CPU's in a box may
>>>>>>be
>>>>>>strongly indicative that you haven't been paying attention to Oracle's
>>>>>>message.
>>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>>And what would that message be?
>>>>
>>>>That more than 4 CPU's in a box may be strongly indicative that you
>>>>don't
>>>>understand the economic, administrative and computin
>>
>>I susspect you are deliberately misreading.
>>g benefit that RAC can
>>
>>>>bring forward.
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> It appears your message is a little scrambled.
>
>
>>>Are you implying that RAC cannot have more than 4 CPUs in a box?
>>
>>No - I am implying that the economics of anything more that 4 CPU is out
>>of
>>whack.
>>
>>Nice trolling ...
>>
>
>
> I didn't know we are changing the topic from scalability to economics.
You are the one that did it. You are flaunting your lack of
understanding of RAC and making an argument that is financial insanity.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)
Received on Fri Dec 09 2005 - 14:06:43 CST
