Re: Oracle 9i RAC vs Hardware clustering (like HACMP)

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:09:58 -0700
Message-ID: <1098932939.750905@yasure>

JEDIDIAH wrote:

> On 2004-10-26, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>

>>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2004-10-20, DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Clark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:14:38 -0700, DA Morgan
>>>>><damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Praveen wrote:
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Worth considering the limitations of RAC too -- range etc..  That said
>>>>>h/w clustering and RAC are often complimentary in large scale
>>>>>deployments where they each provide a solution to certain
>>>>>problems/challenges.  Certainly for large projects the aquisition
>>>>>costs are rarely a major factor for a blue chip. 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark 
>>>>>http://www.linxcel.co.uk
>>>>
>>>>What limitation? In Japan they ran a 10g RAC cluster with 128 nodes.
>>>>Do you think you can find an SMP machine that large?
>>>
>>>
>>>	Depending on the size of the indivual nodes, SGI probably makes
>>>such a machine already.
>>>
>>>	Although, there is a difference between running and running well. The
>>>biggest production deployment I've ever heard of was 30 nodes. However, that's
>>>been awhile.
>>
>>I believe it was 128 nodes with 4 CPU Dells making 256 CPUs and that it

>
>
> That would be 512 cpus actually.
>
> That is equal to a single SGI Altix. As cluster tech progresses, so
> does SMP tech. SGI will be targeting 1024 cpus next. Sun still lags behind
> a little. However, that cluster would still resolve to a relatively small
> cluster size with E15Ks (4 nodes) Given what SGI has done, I am sure that
> Sun is looking to introduce something even bigger (than a 15K).
>
>

>>scaled at 80% of theoretical. Mark Townsend might wish to weigh in with

>
>
> How did that application scale at smaller cluster sizes? Did each
> node added from #2 on up yield the same boost to performance, or was there
> a better increase in performance per node for smaller values of the cluster
> size?
>
>
>

>>the details if he can make them public. I noticed an Oracle publication
>>not too long ago list 64 nodes which is 1/2 of what I know was proven.
>>This is not surprising as I have never had a RAC fail-over as slow as
>>what Oracle guarantees either. They seem to be reasonably cautious in
>>what they claim: And reasonably so.

Thanks for the math correction. I rewrote several times and the 256 got there based on what Oracle claims rather than what Oracle did. My mistake.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 22:09:58 CDT