Re: FW: Parallel Server --> RAC

Yo,

Here's the official line from Oracle:

In building RAC, Oracle discarded the old OPS technology. OPS customers may, of course, continue to run Oracle 8i as their database program if they prefer to continue to employ OPS. However, current OPS customers who wish to run Oracle 9i databases on clusters will need to migrate to RAC. To protect customer investments in OPS and to encourage customers to utilize the advantages of the new RAC technology, Oracle offers a net-to-net migration path. Supported OPS customers who choose to migrate their existing OPS licenses to new RAC licenses will receive a credit for the net license fees paid for the migrated licenses. This credit may be applied toward the purchase price of the new RAC licenses.

Isn't that a beauty? I never imagined this. We should all be grateful that Oracle has chosen to build on proven, tested technology instead of doing it all from scratch. GES and GCS hare pretty much the same since version 5. The new stuff added have various issues, by the way, as all new software has.

The reason RAC runs so relatively easy and stable is that it's a lot of stable, old, tested stuff with some new stuff added.

I love it.

Mogens

Tim Gorman wrote:

>Ian,
>
>Sorry for the unhelpful previous response; I found the situation amusing
>when it isn't...
>
>RAC is quite clearly the same product as OPS and not a new product. Both
>clearly are the same code base and are targeted at the exact same markets:
>H/A and scalability. The older Parallel Server documentation mentions
>earlier versions of the same components as the newer Real Application
>Clusters documentation, including such central concepts as "cache fusion",
>"distributed lock manager", "global cache" wait events and enqueues, etc,
>etc, etc...
>
>Searching MetaLink on the keywords "OPS RAC", I find (among many others)
>MetaLink note #181489.1, entitled "Tuning Inter-Instance Performance in RAC
>and OPS". This document establishes an obvious evolutionary path between
>the two products that even a marketing person can follow. There are
>probably others that do so more explicitly...
>
>There is a useful old saying, especially beloved by those in sales:
>"nothing ventured, nothing gained". Nothing personal, just business. With
>a little pressure from many fronts however, they might cave. For example,
>you could offer your future goodwill (i.e. a reference), which is worth
>actual dollars. If instead they could gain a prestigious referenceable RAC
>account by converting the existing OPS licenses, they might be persuaded.
>This is not as craven as it sounds -- why wouldn't you mind to tell your
>success story to other Oracle prospects, provided you were successful and
>(implicitly) treated well?
>
>You might not be able to shake them from trying to charge you extra for RAC
>over OPS; they can simply keep repeating their mantra that it is a
>different product. But perhaps you can gain a Pyrrhic victory in making
>them feel silly while doing so...
>
>Your best leverage probably just ended last week, as this month-end is the
>end of Oracle's fiscal year (sales bookings usually have to be signed the
>week prior to month end). The month of May is replete with stories of hard
>bargains driven by savvy customers, aided by sales folks desperate to make
>quota. OPS and RAC are both well-known quota busters. By the same token,
>this also means that the pressure has slackened for the salespeople to
>convert your OPS license into a new RAC sale. You might be able to talk
>sensibly with them now.
>
>Best of luck...
>
>-Tim
>
>------ Forwarded Message
>Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California
>Reply-To: ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com
>Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 10:03:47 -0800
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
>
>And we all thought the name change was just a sham..... :-)
>
>
>on 5/23/03 3:16 PM, MacGregor, Ian A. at ian_at_SLAC.Stanford.EDU wrote:
>
>
>
>>We are licensed for, but are not using parallel server. I do have one project
>>which may benefit from it. Naturally I am interested in real application
>>clusters. However, I've just been told that RAC is not considered an upgrade
>>of parallel server, but a different product. That is, it will cost $$$.
>>This is different than what I had assumed. Has anyone else run into this?
>>
>>Ian MacGregor
>>Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
>>ian_at_SLAC.Stanford.edu
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
-- 
Author: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mogens_N=F8rgaard?=
  INET: mln_at_miracleas.dk

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).