Re: Again, Solaris or Linux for RAC

"Robert Klemme" <shortcutter_at_googlemail.com> wrote in message news:5ojv5tFnf60eU1_at_mid.individual.net...
> On 26.10.2007 22:36, Mladen Gogala wrote:
>> For DW, I would consider RAC. Have in mind that PC machines are not true
>> minicomputers and have hard times with large I/O loads.> Also, cheapo
>> disk arrays like Xiotech cannot handle high data loads like EMC, Hitachi
>> or IBM Shark. SUN minicomputers are far better at handling high I/O loads
>> then any Linux box.
>
> That's what they used to say but is it still true? I would believe that
> modern PC systems (not the cheap ones) yield at least similar throughput
> as Solaris boxes - but at a significantly lower price. This would not be
> surprising given the number of players in the field and the amount of
> research put into either one. I believe I saw a performance benchmark
> where a high end PC was significantly faster than a Sparc machine but
> unfortunately I cannot reproduce the URL.
>

Are we talking about a few dozens of concurrent connections or a few thousand like OP's environment? Performance is not the only consideration either. If you are running RAC, availability and scalability should also be on top of your list.

Precisely because of many players in the x86 field, there are garden variety of systems available making it difficult to test them all thoroughly. That's why machine lockups and driver problems are seen most frequently on PC systems. Yes, they are cheap, but downtime can be very costly. Received on Sun Oct 28 2007 - 16:02:05 CDT