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... > > Cary, Zhu, and some others are correct. If you are looking for > "performance", don't use RAC. The cost of everything , including just > starting the instance, is greater. If you want basic availability, don't > use RAC. It is more complex and has more "moving parts" that can go wrong. > Please refer to Mogens' paper "You Probably Don't Need RAC" at > http://www.miracleas.dk (via Writings From Mogens). > ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------