RE: 64 node Oracle RAC Cluster (The reality of...)

  • From: "Jesse, Rich" <Rich.Jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:44:53 -0500

Hey Mladen,

Just for my own clarity, how does functional partitioning differ from
SQueaLServer's federated layout?  I remember an Oracle Marketing Schpeel
about how that was a bad thing when compared to RAC, specifically
targeting the high TPC marks (which in themselves are irrelevant).  The
bad part being the SPOF of any one box in the federated cluster would
take out that functionality being solely hosted on that one box.


-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:20 AM
To: cmarquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: rjamya; oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 64 node Oracle RAC Cluster (The reality of...)

On 06/21/2005 08:17:38 AM, Marquez, Chris wrote:
> >>thought of seeing eye popping 
> >>number of 'global cache cr requests' 
> >>for a 64 node RAC gives me chills.
> My thoughts exactly!
> Chris Marquez
> Oracle DBA

There are two unholy words which Oracle sales people usually avoid when
about RAC: functional partitioning. Functional partitioning means that
each RAC
node has a separate and specialized function and is mostly dealing with
one part 
the database. That is still the best way of organizing RAC system. Also,
several cluster nodes, the private connection becomes crucial. With 64
N-cube like communication structure must be in place, so that each node
reachable through the fixed number of hops.

Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA


Other related posts: