Re: Cheetah2 connection manager and failover arbitrator

Is IDS SDS equivalent to RAC? Nope! But, lets make sure we understand the market that IDS SDS is aimed at. SDS (like HDR) is aimed at the 2 node active/active paradigm. Its aimed at applications which do mostly reads. Horizontal scaling for reads is at 100%... for writes... well, that's a different story. Nodes can join and exit the cluster with virtually 0 interuption to the cluster (requires a checkpoint). And failover is transparent to the non effected applications (those attached to the non failing node) just like RAC. If you know RAC well, you know in a failover situation that all remaining nodes are impacted during a failover situation with a short interruption... not true for SDS. Based on your 2 criteria (transparent failover and horizontal scaling), IDS SDS makes RAC look like a toy. What percentage of RAC installations are over 2 nodes? How do non partitioned applications fair on RAC? Heck... you can expand that question to any clustered db solution! Since your an expert, I shouldn't need explain what that means and you should know the answer. Bottom line... RAC and IDS SDS are not the same product. Each has its merits. But for the sweet spot of where most db customers are today (2 node active/active), SDS provides a very nice solution with 1/10th the complexity... Less filling and tastes great! But, its not for everyone. On Jun 7, 10:34 am, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote: > Art Kagel wrote: > > Non-sequitor! > > > No.  HDR is far superior to anything that Oracle has, but that may not > > be to what you refer.  Perhaps it was the reference to RSS or Remote > > Secondary Servers?  No to that also.  These are additional remote backup > > servers with their own disk, like a standard HDR secondary but they use > > a different communications protocol which is more forgiving of longer > > slower network connections than HDR needs to be.  These also have no > > competition from anything Oracle fields. > > > What you are likely thinking about is SDSS or Shared Disk Secondary > > Servers which share disk with a standalone server, HDR primary or > > secondary, and RSS server or even other, multiple, SDSS servers.  This > > feature is the one that competes directly with Oracle RAC.  And it fairs > > pretty well, too. > > > I would, however, like to acknowledge that in this post Daniel has > > finally admitted his ignorace.  This is note worthy and praise worthy! > > >     Please excuse my ignorance as I have yet to look into it ... but ... is > >     this what is intended to compete with Oracle RAC? > >     -- > >     Daniel A. Morgan > >     University of Washington > >     damor...@x.washington.edu <mailto:damor...@x.washington.edu> > >     (replace x with u to respond) > >     _______________________________________________ > >     Informix-list mailing list > >     Informix-l...@iiug.org <mailto:Informix-l...@iiug.org> > >    http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > > -- > > Art S. Kagel > > Oninit (www.oninit.com<http://www.oninit.com>) > > IIUG Board of Directors (a...@iiug.org <mailto:a...@iiug.org>) > > I wasn't soliciting a marketing diatribe. I was asking a simple Boolean > question. Apparently you couldn't answer it. > > What I am asking about is: > 1. Incremental horizontal scaling > 2. Transparent failover > > You addressed neither. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -