RE: Grid skepticism

Interesting perspective on don-NOT vs J2EE. Seems like the fat vs thin
client and the giant server vs many small servers debates are still not
settled. Aspects of grid computing are appealing but I've still got a
Missouri show-me attitude.=20

Eschewing complexity and embracing the simple life in Montana.


-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nuno Souto
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 5:00 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Grid skepticism


Orr, Steve apparently said,on my timestamp of 25/06/2004 2:12 AM:

> The article doesn't actually say that MySQL can do grid but in the=20
> immediate context the author is not clear as to what he's talking=20
> about.

Yes, very much so.

> Is the "problem:"=3D20
> 1) merely providing general database services; or=3D20
> 2) providing simultaneous access to the SAME data for 10,000=20
> concurrent sessions?=3D20

It can be both or one of them.  The problem was not even identified by
the article author, that is why the solution sounded hollow.

> the second problem. If you don't need to support an extremely large=20
> number of users having concurrent access the *same* data then why pay=20
> for this functionality when something much cheaper will do the job=20
> just fine?=3D20

The same argument applies against scalability: why waste time with the
extremely complex and resource hungry J2EE (or equivalent environments)
if all you'll ever need is a small workflow app to handle 20 users? Why
bother with the scalability design metaphor at all if all you have is 30
users of a dumb app?

Horses for courses.  That's why IMHO M$ has the correct design model
with dot-NOT: they can cope with ANY architecture, from the ridiculously
simple to the extremely complex.  And they can take advantage of the
power of the workstation.  While J2EE insists on it being as dumb as a
brick and completely wastes that resource.

Fact is: there is MUCH more processing power out there in desktops than
there is in servers.  Ain't gonna change anytime soon either. Use it to
run useful stuff, not just screen savers or dumb rendering engines.


> I work at one of the world's top 25 ASP's and we can very effectively=20
> and cost efficiently throw MySQL/Linux servers at the "problem"=20
> because our database schemas are completely self-contained. So let's=20
> see, I have

Nothing wrong with that.  Like I said in my last reply:
use whatever matches your needs.


> Why pay for things you don't need? To preserve the customer base and=20
> keep people like me from moving to another RDBMS Oracle needs to=20
> provide a basic ANSI SQL database server for about $2K max per server.

> IMHO.

Agreed 100%.  Ken Jacobs had precisely the same idea.
He was unfortunately over-ruled by the marketing "geniuses"
at Oracle.  Let's hope they didn't jeopardize the long term
for the dubious advantage of 6 months of high profit sales...

--=20
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
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: