Re: Grid skepticism
- From: Nuno Souto <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:00:15 +1000
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
> immediate context the author is not clear as to what he's talking about.
Yes, very much so.
> Is the "problem:"=20
> 1) merely providing general database services; or=20
> 2) providing simultaneous access to the SAME data for 10,000 concurrent
> sessions?=20
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
> number of users having concurrent access the *same* data then why pay
> for this functionality when something much cheaper will do the job just
> fine?=20
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
> and cost efficiently throw MySQL/Linux servers at the "problem" because
> our database schemas are completely self-contained. So let's 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
> keep people like me from moving to another RDBMS Oracle needs to 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...
--
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 //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
