Re: clustering and high availability?

"Thomas Kyte" <thomas.kyte_at_oracle.com> wrote in message news:7b0834a8.0406140709.5af3025d_at_posting.google.com...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:<40cd533a$0$11521$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > "Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> > news:1087195407.21563_at_yasure...
> >
>
> >
> > But let's ask him: Tom, did you really mean to say that RAC was a
clustering
> > topology in its own right? Or were you using clustering topology
language
> > because RAC (usually) runs on top of such a topology, and therefore the
two
> > could at a stretch be encompassed with the same terminology? Perhaps Tom
> > will help us out with a clarification. Then we can discuss whether he's
> > right or wrong based on that clarification (and, incidentally Daniel,
just
> > because Tom is a VP at Oracle doesn't mean he turns water into wine, or
> > falsities into facts... so cut the appeal to authority, because it won't
> > wash).
> >
>
> I was using clustering topology language as an analogy -- and took it
> too far.

The word 'analogy' escaped me for some reason, but as I say, I knew what you were saying, and why, and so that's a perfect description of what you were writing, so thanks.

> We run in a "shared disk" (which I guess in my database state of mind
> i liberally extended to shared everything for in the database state of
> mind, the disk is everything :) as opposed to "do not share disks,
> partition" mode.
>
> I'll be more precise in the future. I've used it as a generalization/
> characterization over time.
>
> It would technically be about shared disk, which I over generalized to
> be a "shared everything".

Appreciate the clarification. And not just because it happens to make my point for me.

> About that water into wine thing -- I'm still working on that. It
> could save me huge amounts of money.

:-)

> I totally agree with authority thingy, just because I (or *anyone*)
> said it doesn't make it true. My favorite slide in a technology
> presentation is entitled "Question Authority". Everyone can (does?)
> make over generalizations, push analogies past their limits of
> believability, jump to incorrect conclusions. I know I have -- it is
> good to have it pointed out over time (makes us all look less stupid
> since we don't keep repeating it). Precision of words is important --
> especially in technology.
>
> Clarifications appreciated

Not as much as yours has just been, I suspect!

Regards
HJR Received on Mon Jun 14 2004 - 12:10:10 CDT