> Sy Borg wrote:
>
> >
> > 2. DB2 can deliver better performance but only if the data that is
> > accessed together is physically laid out together and the application
> > has knowledge of the physical data layout (so it can connect to the
> > right node in the cluster ). However, if, we separate the application
> > logic from physical layout of the data the performance will be
> > unpredictable.
> >
> > All this is just hypotheses - if anyone has some real world experience
> > with these two offerings and can offer an objective opinion - we'd
> > really appreciate it.
>
> The "bottleneck" you have identified is only a problem if you don't
> obtain the proper hardware. The number of transactions, and volume,
> going through an HBA to a storage device is not related to RAC versus
> federated data. Buy the right hardware and there is no issue.
>
> The main consideration I would think would be the overhead of federating
> data for DB2. The more data the more difficult and time consuming and
> the fact that losing nodes with RAC is an inconvience ... with DB2 you
> have a lot more to worry about ... and mean time between failures goes
> down, not up, as you add nodes.
>
> --
> Daniel Morgan
Where does he say that federated support will be used (or is needed) for
DB2?
Received on Wed Jun 16 2004 - 19:01:21 CDT
