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

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.

TIA,
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Mladen Gogala Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:20 AM
To: cmarquez_at_collegeboard.org
Cc: rjamya; oracle-l_at_freelists.org
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 talking
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, with
several cluster nodes, the private connection becomes crucial. With 64 nodes,
N-cube like communication structure must be in place, so that each node is
reachable through the fixed number of hops.

-- 
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l