Re: tough choices

Mark A wrote:

>>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?

He didn't. Another response to him did.

-- 
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)