Re: MS SQL Server Evaluation

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:31:00 -0800
Message-ID: <1079397033.657655@yasure>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1079388217.467747_at_yasure...
>

>>Different countries different priorities perhaps. Here TAF is a bigger
>>issue.

>
>
> Not sure how it can be that big an issue, considering it does sod-all and
> works only when the prevailing wind is from the west on alternate wet
> Wednesday afternoons with a full moon. But whatever. I know it gets better
> in 10g.

Actually it gets just fine in 9.2.0.4 if you actually write decent code. Meaning code that traps for commits, etc.

> "My dear CFO. You have been gulled by Oracle marketing. Were things really
> as easy as bolting on another 8 cpu box as the need arose, I would naturally
> have recommended that particular solution. But it isn't. The additional
> costs associated with the extra code layer that RAC brings are potentially
> immense (I believe they're known as "bugs" in the trade)

Dear Ex-employee:

Played a round of golf last Saturday with a couple of my buddies from over at Amazon.com and they said ... we're not having any problems perhaps you need to hire better people and get them some training.

Poorly trained staff is not an Oracle bug. RAC isn't easy. I'm not saying that it is. But it can be done successfully and for far less money than that 16 CPU box. BTW ... when you need to fail-over that 16 CPU box ... you need a second one.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Mon Mar 15 2004 - 18:31:00 CST