RE: 9i RAC or 10g RAC ?

Mogens - why is it I detect a hint of sarcasm in this post?

Let me tell you of a recent incident we experienced.

A client REQUESTED 9i RAC, and we dissuaded them, mainly because of
cost, but in part, because we do not have a great deal of experience
with it, and their Siebel system was very critical.

Of course, this was quickly turned in to a representation of limitations
of our abilities, when in fact we were trying to steer our customers in
the safest direction. =20

Of course, given enough time and money for testing, we could certainly
implement RAC for them.  But we knew it was not available!

Can't win for losing, as they say....

Michael Fontana
Sr. DBA
NTT/Verio



-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mogens N=F8rgaard
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 9:08 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 9i RAC or 10g RAC ?


Thank you for pointing to my paper. Recently, though, I have decided
that I will no longer say "You Probably Don't Need RAC" or anything to
that effect.

Instead, I'll give this statement to our customers:

"I would highly recommend the use of RAC. In fact, when in doubt, use
RAC. It's even free with Standard Edition.

Also, I want to stress that most customers should use partitioning. It
doesn't matter how big your tables are, or whether you have the perfect
partition key available - you should use it anyhow. It's cool, and it's
available. It's not free, but it's worth a lot of money to you.

Advanced Queueing, Advanced Replication, in general Advanced.* should
also be adopted agressively. Can't hurt, and it will make your business
more advanced.

Kind regards,

A (large) share owner of a consulting company.

PS: Oh, and do not ever create a system without DataGuard... "

It's my experience that this very, very positive message has a much
stronger impact on my listeners than the rather negative "You ....
Don't..." message.


Mogens



Don Granaman wrote:

> I'll chime in...
>=20
> Cary, Zhu, and some others are correct.  If you are looking for=20
> "performance", don't use RAC.  The cost of everything , including just

> starting the instance, is greater.  If you want basic availability,=20
> don't use RAC.  It is more complex and has more "moving parts" that=20
> can go wrong. Please refer to Mogens' paper "You Probably Don't Need=20
> RAC" at http://www.miracleas.dk (via Writings From Mogens).
>=20


----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx put
'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to:  oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Other related posts: