Along these lines, this whole thing came from one of our sales people who ran into a prospect that was currently running on an alternate database, but once you brought together an HA solution, support, etc. - it was cheaper to run on Oracle SE w/ RAC than the alternate solution, and they wanted the scalability path and stability. But that got me thinking about where SE is in the market. Thanks, Matt -----Original Message----- From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Paul Drake Sent: Thu 1/4/2007 5:18 PM To: kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Oracle Standard Edition & RAC On 1/4/07, Kevin Closson <kevinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: There are an awful lot of systems out there that have time to do batch stuff (like stats etc) overnight, that would arguably do index creation out of hours as well and don't do 300M worth of data transfer/redo generation in a 10 minute window of normal use, let alone per second. A rather surprising number of these people believe they need/have been sold/want to imagine that they are large enough to need EE and not a 'Workgroup' product. I disagree with them:) .I'm with you.so if SE fits 200-500 users and such systems don't need PQO-hence we label it "Workgroup", why Oracle at all? I'm not being "typically ascerbic Kevin" here. I don't know how app development on SE compares to, say SQL Server and what the portfolio of apps looks like with Oracle for workgroups over other databases. Can someome tell me why Oracle at all at such a low scale? 1. backup/restore/recovery is rock solid. 2. if/when time comes to throw money at the problem in terms of bigger box, more CPUs, EE, partitioning, etc ... no re-write of the application is required. 3. because the CFO likes it 4. in 10g, they don't need a dba. ok, I'll stop there. Paul -- -- ALTER SESSION SET EVENTS 'immediate trace name hanganalyze level 4';