Re: clustering and high availability?

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 23:43:11 -0700
Message-ID: <1087195407.21563@yasure>

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:1087187855.432369_at_yasure...
>

>>Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I repeat: Why can't you just say, without the smart comments and
>>>the reservation they imply, "I was wrong to suggest that; I see the

>
> point
>

>>>you were making; and upon reflection, I agree with it"?
>>>
>>>You still haven't.
>>>
>>>HJR\
>>
>>Because I don't for one minute think I was wrong. Serge and I were
>>discussing hard disks.

>
>
> Serge has written that he agrees with *me*. So why do you think he and *you*
> were agreeing about something?
>
>

>>You brought up sharing of RAM out of the blue.

>
>
> You said Serge was wrong to suggest that RAC was just the sharing of disks.
> You implied more was being shared than just disks. RAM was the obvious other
> candidate. Along with, perhaps, CPU. You were wrong to suggest anything
> Serge posted was incorrect.
>
>

>>Which, as you acknowledged, has nothing to do with shared everything
>>as defined by Oracle.

>
>
> Oracle doesn't define shared everything. You keep saying this, but some
> quotes would be nice. Oracle, I believe, last time I checked, said RAC used
> shared everything cluster architectures. It didn't claim RAC was a shared
> everything cluster architecture itself.
>
>

>>What is it in your drinking water that makes you want to drive every
>>nail in with a sledge hammer?

>
>
> What is it about you that makes you think you can be totally technically
> wrong, and yet not have to acknowledge the fact? What is it in your mindset
> that says, when challenged on the matter, I will make assumptions about
> someone's motives in posting; I will distort what was actually posted; I
> will imply something about another poster's poor behaviour; I will make
> statements about a poster's sense of humour or lack thereof; in fact, I will
> do everything... except simply acknowledge that I was wrong?
>
> Why is that Daniel? Why can't you simply admit, without qualification and
> prevarication, that your comment to Serge that "he thinks wrong" was
> actually itself 100% wrong? Serge thinks it was wrong. I think it was wrong.
> It is only you that thinks you weren't (but no surprises there, eh?)
>
> We've been here before, however. So let's just end it now, with you claiming
> the moral high ground, and everyone bar you recognisinig the truth of the
> matter. Suits me just fine.
>
> HJR
You wrote: "Oracle doesn't define "shared everything"?"

And Tom Kyte wrote this: "SQL Server has shared nothing clustering. we have and have had shared everything. With sql server, you put the data for department 10 on node 1, department 20 on the other node. If you need dept = 10 data, you goto node 1. need dept = 20, you goto node 2. With Oracle -- you goto the node you want, they all access any bit of data, no physical partitioning of data needed nor desired."

Reference:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:12163950898199995897::NO::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID,F4950_P8_CRITERIA:3512484632553,

Tom Kyte also wrote the following:

"OPS is a shared EVERYTHING architecture."

Reference:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:12163950898199995897::NO::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID,F4950_P8_CRITERIA:351213613475,

Last time I looked Tom was a Vice President at Oracle Corporation and he seems to have no problem using the phrase "shared everything". Neither does Kent Stroker Oracle's west coast US RAC expert. So given the choice of listening to another of your angry attempts to pick a fight ... or Tom Kyte's statements ... what do you think a reasonable person will do?

Last word is yours Howard as I'll not respond to this thread again.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Received on Mon Jun 14 2004 - 01:43:11 CDT