Oracle 10G

Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and about it's grid computing capabilities. Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is this something completely different ? Dirk Moolman Database and Unix Administrator MXGROUP "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Kierkegaard ________________________________ << ella for Spam Control >> has removed 1700 Spam messages and set aside 372 Newsletters for me You can use it too - and it's FREE! www.ellaforspam.com sending to informix-list

Dirk Moolman wrote: > > Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and > about it's grid computing capabilities. > > > > Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is > this something completely different ? It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Dirk Moolman wrote: > > >>Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and >>about it's grid computing capabilities. >> >> >> >>Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is >>this something completely different ? > > > It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start. XPS may work ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class at the University of Washington. Comparing grid with XPS is like comparing a Informix database with an Excel spreadsheet. While they may both run on computers that is pretty much where the similarities begin and end. If you would like to come to Seattle on March 20th for Oracle Technology Day I would be happy to give you a full tour including ASM and ADDM. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1078078329.562727@yasure... > ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more > than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound > Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class > at the University of Washington. Do you keep your trumpet close by, Daniel, for those frequent occasions that you're going to need it?

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >> Dirk Moolman wrote: >> >> >>>Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and >>>about it's grid computing capabilities. >>> >>>Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is >>>this something completely different ? >> >> >> It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start. > > XPS may work ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more > than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound > Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class > at the University of Washington. > > Comparing grid with XPS is like comparing a Informix database with > an Excel spreadsheet. While they may both run on computers that is > pretty much where the similarities begin and end. If you would like > to come to Seattle on March 20th for Oracle Technology Day I would > be happy to give you a full tour including ASM and ADDM. Sure, I'll come. You send the plane ticket? -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > > >>Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> >> >>>Dirk Moolman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and >>>>about it's grid computing capabilities. >>>> >>>>Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is >>>>this something completely different ? >>> >>> >>>It's something completely different. XPS actually works, for a start. >> >>XPS may work ... but so does 10g grid as I happily proved to more >>than 60 people last week: Wednesday evening to the Puget Sound >>Oracle Users Group and Thursday evening to my Advanced Oracle class >>at the University of Washington. >> >>Comparing grid with XPS is like comparing a Informix database with >>an Excel spreadsheet. While they may both run on computers that is >>pretty much where the similarities begin and end. If you would like >>to come to Seattle on March 20th for Oracle Technology Day I would >>be happy to give you a full tour including ASM and ADDM. > > > Sure, I'll come. You send the plane ticket? Where are you? -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Dirk Moolman" <DirkM@mxgroup.co.za> wrote in message news:<c1soil$pc1$1@terabinaries.xmission.com>... > Quick question - I was told a little about Oracle 10G on Friday - and about it's grid computing capabilities. > > > > Question: Is this the same as Informix XPS (functionality wise) - or is this something completely different ? > I suspect that there is going to be a lot of confusion of Oracle 10G and what the rest of the world considers to be grid computing. The rest of the world considers grid computing to be using a resource regardless of the resource. That means that it considers an Oracle data source to be equivalent to an IDS data source, or a DB2, or a MSSql. For that matter, in a true grid environment, non-relational data, such as data contained in spreadsheets, maps, XML documents, etc. are also considered to be valid data for processing. This means that data sources must be treated as a virturalized datasource. Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because is not virturalizing the data sources. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dirk Moolman > > Database and Unix Administrator > > MXGROUP > > > > > > "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." > > -Kierkegaard > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > << ella for Spam Control >> has removed 1700 Spam messages and set aside 372 Newsletters for me > You can use it too - and it's FREE! www.ellaforspam.com > > sending to informix-list

mpruet wrote: > Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some > resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be > a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because > is not virturalizing the data sources. I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic with catastrophic. There is absolutely no relationship between XPS and grid or between RAC and grid. The grid control can be used to manage cluster resources but one can have RAC without grid and grid without RAC. They are two entirely different technologies ... two entirely different concepts. So the statement, above, is completely incorrect. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: > mpruet wrote: > >> Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some >> resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be >> a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because >> is not virturalizing the data sources. > > I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of > explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is > what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic > with catastrophic. I wondered what had happened to all Informix's marketing staff. Now I know. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1078098084.135691@yasure>... > mpruet wrote: > > > Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some > > resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be > > a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because > > is not virturalizing the data sources. > > I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of > explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is > what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic > with catastrophic. > > There is absolutely no relationship between XPS and grid or between > RAC and grid. The grid control can be used to manage cluster resources > but one can have RAC without grid and grid without RAC. They are two > entirely different technologies ... two entirely different concepts. > > So the statement, above, is completely incorrect. But yours, and Oracle marketing's, is gibberish. From: http://www.gridcomputing.com/gridfaq.html "The key distinction between clusters and grids is[sic] mainly lie in the way resources are managed. In case of clusters, the resource allocation is performed by a centralised resource manager and all nodes cooperatively work together as a single unified resource. In case of Grids, each node has its own resource manager and don't aim for providing a single system view." Given this definition of the term of art ("grid" - in the context of computing) there can be no such thing as a centralized "grid control". The whole point of a grid -- as distinct from a cluster -- is that a grid is self-organizing. That's why "there is no relationship between XPS and grid, or RAC and grid". If what 10g has is a tool that lets DBAs add machines to and remove machines at will, then that is not a "grid" as defined above. It's a really useful thing, but it ain't a grid. With a grid, you tell a machine about 'the grid', and it insinuates itself into 'the grid', making its resources available for whatever it is that 'the grid' is up to. With 10g, you tell 10g about the machine, quite a different thing. There are *lots* of interesting technologies being worked on to make data management on 'the grid' a reality -- distributed hash tables, agoric query processing, transaction-pairing -- but none of them has found its way into a commercial DBMS. What Oracle's use of the term does, however, is to brilliantly obfuscate an emergent technology with buzz-word-babble. Look - resource provisioning is a really cool, really hard, thing to do, and if Oracle's managed it then that's pretty impressive. But a grid is something else entirely. So, simple question Daniel. Do you tell the machine about 10G, or do you tell 10G about the machine?

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1078098084.135691@yasure>... > mpruet wrote: > > > Oracle 10G is basically an XPS (or RAC) type of system with some > > resource provisioning. By what the rest of the world considers to be > > a grid system, 10G would not be considered to be grid - simply because > > is not virturalizing the data sources. > > I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of > explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is > what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic > with catastrophic. > > There is absolutely no relationship between XPS and grid or between > RAC and grid. The grid control can be used to manage cluster resources > but one can have RAC without grid and grid without RAC. They are two > entirely different technologies ... two entirely different concepts. > > So the statement, above, is completely incorrect. One can have grid without XPS, just as one can have XPS without grid. In fact, one can have grid with IDS and ER. In fact one of the larger current scientific European grid environments is running IDS using ER and one of the larger current medical grid systems is running on DB2. You are correct, there is much more to grid processing than XPS, RAC, etc. There is publishing of various locations of data to applications, there is virtualization of data so that all hetrogenous, there is quantification of quality of service, there movement of data, there is dynamic provisioning of resources, etc.... My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to non-Oracle 10g systems, nor does it integrate dynamically with non-relational data sources. Therefor, to call it a grid database is rather questionable.

Comments interspersed. Paul G. Brown wrote: > But yours, and Oracle marketing's, is gibberish. Not necessarily "and" ... could be "or". > > From: > > http://www.gridcomputing.com/gridfaq.html > > "The key distinction between clusters and grids is[sic] mainly lie in the way > resources are managed. In case of clusters, the resource allocation is > performed by a centralised resource manager and all nodes cooperatively > work together as a single unified resource. In case of Grids, each node > has its own resource manager and don't aim for providing a single system > view." From my experience neither describes the Oracle grid control. > Given this definition of the term of art ("grid" - in the context of > computing) there can be no such thing as a centralized "grid control". Thus one can reasonably conclude that people in a marketing department redefined a word for their own purposes. Well that sure would be the first time that ever happened. ;-) > The whole point of a grid -- as distinct from a cluster -- is that a > grid is self-organizing. That's why "there is no relationship between > XPS and grid, or RAC and grid". The Oracle grid control can be self-organizing but it can also be managed entirely by human intervention. Depends on how it is set up. > If what 10g has is a tool that lets DBAs add machines to and remove > machines at will, then that is not a "grid" as defined above. I thought I said that. ;-) It's a > really useful thing, but it ain't a grid. As defined by someone else. Surely you wouldn't want to have the fine folks at Microsoft defining the word "partition" for any of us. With a grid, you tell a > machine about 'the grid', and it insinuates itself into 'the grid', > making its resources available for whatever it is that 'the grid' is > up to. With 10g, you tell 10g about the machine, quite a different thing. Not at all. The grid has an agent that can find the resource on its own. > There are *lots* of interesting technologies being worked on to make > data management on 'the grid' a reality -- distributed hash tables, > agoric query processing, transaction-pairing -- but none of them has > found its way into a commercial DBMS. Distributed hash tables aren't in a commercial DBMS yet? http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96540/statements_73a.htm#2063017 CREATE TABLE hash_products ( product_id NUMBER(6) , product_name VARCHAR2(50) , product_description VARCHAR2(2000) , category_id NUMBER(2) , weight_class NUMBER(1) , warranty_period INTERVAL YEAR TO MONTH , supplier_id NUMBER(6) , product_status VARCHAR2(20) , list_price NUMBER(8,2) , min_price NUMBER(8,2) , catalog_url VARCHAR2(50) , CONSTRAINT product_status_lov CHECK (product_status in ('orderable' ,'planned' ,'under development' ,'obsolete') ) ) PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) PARTITIONS 5 STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4); Could have fooled me. > What Oracle's use of the term does, however, is to brilliantly obfuscate > an emergent technology with buzz-word-babble. Look - resource provisioning > is a really cool, really hard, thing to do, and if Oracle's managed it > then that's pretty impressive. But a grid is something else entirely. > > So, simple question Daniel. Do you tell the machine about 10G, or do > you tell 10G about the machine? As I stated above ... an agent, running 7x24, finds the resource. Keep in mind here we are not talking just about database servers. We are also talking about app servers, web servers, any piece of hardware with a heart-beat and Oracle software installed. Unless a technology rises to the level of becoming part of some standard (ASCII, ISO) the words used to describe it are a battle ground upon which marketing and P/R types fight their wars. All I care about is the technology. And no matter what Oracle chooses to call it ... it is incredible. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

mpruet wrote: > My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning > (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the > resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to > non-Oracle 10g systems, And XPS provides grid control to Oracle database and application servers? Please point me to a document describing this. I haven't seen it before. nor does it integrate dynamically with > non-relational data sources. Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the Application Server. Therefor, to call it a grid database is rather questionable. To the best of my knowledge Oracle has not referred to it as a "grid datbase". I have two CD packs sitting on my desk. They are: Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) the other Oracle Enterprise Manager 10g Grid Control Release 1 (10.1.0.2) The grid control is part of OEM ... not the database. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

"Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c1tug3$1ngkta$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... > Daniel Morgan wrote: > > I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of > > explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is > > what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic > > with catastrophic. > > I wondered what had happened to all Informix's marketing staff. Now I know. Actually, I believe they have been absorbed into IBM, and are now engaged in persuading Informix customers to move to DB2!

Captain Pedantic wrote: > "Obnoxio The Clown" <obnoxio@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:c1tug3$1ngkta$1@ID-64669.news.uni-berlin.de... >> Daniel Morgan wrote: > >> > I have understood that Oracle marketing has done a pathetic job of >> > explaining what they meant by grid ... but if your explanation is >> > what they've been communicating ... I'll replace the word pathetic >> > with catastrophic. >> >> I wondered what had happened to all Informix's marketing staff. Now I > know. > > Actually, I believe they have been absorbed into IBM, and are now engaged > in persuading Informix customers to move to DB2! Ohhh, riiiight! That explains it. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Daniel Morgan wrote: > mpruet wrote: > > >> My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning >> (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the >> resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to >> non-Oracle 10g systems, > > And XPS provides grid control to Oracle database and application > servers? Please point me to a document describing this. I haven't > seen it before. XPS isn't claiming to be a grid database. > nor does it integrate dynamically with >> non-relational data sources. > > Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the > Application Server. That must be a real challenge. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Distributed hash tables aren't in a commercial DBMS yet? > > http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96540/statements_73a.htm#2063017 > > > CREATE TABLE hash_products > ( product_id NUMBER(6) > , product_name VARCHAR2(50) > , product_description VARCHAR2(2000) > , category_id NUMBER(2) > , weight_class NUMBER(1) > , warranty_period INTERVAL YEAR TO MONTH > , supplier_id NUMBER(6) > , product_status VARCHAR2(20) > , list_price NUMBER(8,2) > , min_price NUMBER(8,2) > , catalog_url VARCHAR2(50) > , CONSTRAINT product_status_lov > CHECK (product_status in ('orderable' > ,'planned' > ,'under development' > ,'obsolete') > ) ) > PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) > PARTITIONS 5 > STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4); Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems?

Daniel Morgan wrote: > > Unless a technology rises to the level of becoming part of some > standard (ASCII, ISO) the words used to describe it are a battle > ground upon which marketing and P/R types fight their wars. > > All I care about is the technology. And no matter what Oracle > chooses to call it ... it is incredible. Daniel, I'm quite certain you can look up the definition of a grid at U of Washingtons CompScience library. Most terms in the industry are not standardized, yet they are generally accepted. Messing with them opens one up for a certain amount of ridicule to say the least. The notion of the grid is not a technology. It's a concept. Oracle has some technology.. But it ain't grid. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the >>Application Server. > > > That must be a real challenge. That's why I find it so amazing. I might have an light load on a particular cluster of data servers and have app servers being beaten up. I can just reallocate the computing resources on the fly or set things up so that they reallocate themselves. I think a better way of looking at what Oracle has done, and is doing, is not a grid of databases ... but rather rebuilding mainframes from commoditized hardware and operating systems. Littke noticed is that with grid Oracle supplies the volume manager and cluster file system at no additional charge with the EE license. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Fernando Nunes wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > >> Distributed hash tables aren't in a commercial DBMS yet? >> >> http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B10501_01/server.920/a96540/statements_73a.htm#2063017 >> >> >> CREATE TABLE hash_products >> ( product_id NUMBER(6) >> , product_name VARCHAR2(50) >> , product_description VARCHAR2(2000) >> , category_id NUMBER(2) >> , weight_class NUMBER(1) >> , warranty_period INTERVAL YEAR TO MONTH >> , supplier_id NUMBER(6) >> , product_status VARCHAR2(20) >> , list_price NUMBER(8,2) >> , min_price NUMBER(8,2) >> , catalog_url VARCHAR2(50) >> , CONSTRAINT product_status_lov >> CHECK (product_status in ('orderable' >> ,'planned' >> ,'under development' >> ,'obsolete') >> ) ) >> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) >> PARTITIONS 5 >> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4);> > > Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems? They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: >>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) >>> PARTITIONS 5 >>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4); >> >> >> >> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems? > > > They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical > files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives. In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking about "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as an example of "distributed" hash tables. I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the original poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?) systems.... not "disks". Regards.

Daniel Morgan <damorgan@x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:<1078122524.693011@yasure>... > mpruet wrote: > > > > My point is that while 10g does provide dynamic resource provisioning > > (somthing that XPS has done for years), it does not virtualize the > > resources available to it. It does not provide grid services to > > non-Oracle 10g systems, > > And XPS provides grid control to Oracle database and application > servers? Please point me to a document describing this. I haven't > seen it before. > > nor does it integrate dynamically with > > non-relational data sources. > > Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the > Application Server. Is it integrating with msSQL, DB2, Sybase, and IDS? What about mainframes, spreadsheets, text data, etc. Is is able to decide that a query should be executed on an IDS server because currently the IDS server is idle? If the answer to this is no - then all that 10G has really done is to implement clusters in which the query execution can be dynamically performed. Again - this is somthing that XPS and DB2 EEE has done for years. As I mentioned earlier - there will be a lot of confusion with Oracle calling 10G a grid system because they are using a term without regard to it's meaning. There might be some truth in calling it a grid-like archecture, but then again - XPS and DB2-EEE are also grid-like archectures. > > Therefor, to call it a grid database is rather questionable. > > To the best of my knowledge Oracle has not referred to it as a "grid > datbase". I have two CD packs sitting on my desk. They are: > > Oracle Database 10g Release 1 (10.1.0.2) > the other > Oracle Enterprise Manager 10g Grid Control Release 1 (10.1.0.2) > > The grid control is part of OEM ... not the database.

Fernando Nunes wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > >>>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) >>>> PARTITIONS 5 >>>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4); >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems? >> >> >> >> They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical >> files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives. > > > In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking about > "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as an > example of "distributed" hash tables. > I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the original > poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?) systems.... > not "disks". > > Regards. Perhaps. But the data is hashed and there is nothing that precludes it being distributed over storage from different vendors. If you can mount the file system you can use the storage. But when talking about tables ... we are talking about storage ... not database kernels. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

mpruet wrote: > Is it integrating with msSQL, DB2, Sybase, and IDS? What about > mainframes, spreadsheets, text data, etc. Is is able to decide that a > query should be executed on an IDS server because currently the IDS > server is idle? Oracle only ... Oracle only. I would expect Larry would be as excited about supporting a competitors product as Bill would be about supporting Open Standards. > If the answer to this is no - then all that 10G has really done is to > implement clusters in which the query execution can be dynamically > performed. Again - this is somthing that XPS and DB2 EEE has done for > years. XPS and EEE have not done this. They have done something but it is not this and this is not clusters. RAC is clusters. Grid Control is an entirely different animal. That some think it is the is bad marketing from Oracle. The product has absolutely nothing to do with clusters. It can be used to manage them but that is as close as the two come to each other. > As I mentioned earlier - there will be a lot of confusion with Oracle > calling 10G a grid system because they are using a term without regard > to it's meaning. There might be some truth in calling it a grid-like > archecture, but then again - XPS and DB2-EEE are also grid-like > archectures. I would disagree. Even if one overlooks the fact that shared-nothing precludes a true grid ... clustering is irrelevant to what Oracle has released. And XPS and EEE have nothing in common with ASM and ADDM. -- 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@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Fernando Nunes wrote: > >> Daniel Morgan wrote: >> >>>>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) >>>>> PARTITIONS 5 >>>>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4); >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical >>> files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives. >> >> >> >> In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking >> about "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as >> an example of "distributed" hash tables. >> I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the >> original poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?) >> systems.... not "disks". >> >> Regards. > > > Perhaps. But the data is hashed and there is nothing that precludes > it being distributed over storage from different vendors. If you can > mount the file system you can use the storage. But when talking > about tables ... we are talking about storage ... not database kernels. > Storage on different systems connected only through the internet? http://www-1.ibm.com/grid/about_grid/what_is.shtml " * Like clusters and distributed computing, grids bring computing resources together. * Unlike clusters and distributed computing, which need physical proximity and operating homogeneity, grids can be geographically distributed and heterogeneous." -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Fernando Nunes wrote: > >> Daniel Morgan wrote: >> >>>>> PARTITION BY HASH (product_id) >>>>> PARTITIONS 5 >>>>> STORE IN (tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3, tbs_4); >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are "tbs_1, tbs_2, tbs_3 and tbs_4 different systems? >>> >>> >>> >>> They are logical pointers. Each to one or more physical >>> files. Undoubtedly striped over many separate physical drives. >> >> >> In the context of a discussion about grid computing, when talking about >> "distributed hash tables" I wouln't have given that statement as an >> example of "distributed" hash tables. >> I would bet that when mentioning "distributed hash tables" the original >> poster was referring to "distributed" among (heterogenic?) systems.... >> not "disks". >> >> Regards. > > Perhaps. But the data is hashed and there is nothing that precludes > it being distributed over storage from different vendors. If you can > mount the file system you can use the storage. But when talking > about tables ... we are talking about storage ... not database kernels. Oh, for f***'s sake. This is extremely disingenious, even for you. IDS has had this facility for years, there is nothing grid-y about it. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ''' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Daniel Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > >>>Incorrect. It integrates with other Oracle resources such as the >>>Application Server. >> >> That must be a real challenge. > > That's why I find it so amazing. So it's true that Americans don't do irony? -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Daniel Morgan wrote: > And XPS and EEE have nothing in common with ASM and ADDM. But it all sounds like BS to me. Have you considered working for IBM? You suffer from rampant acronymitis. -- "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ' dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > > >>And XPS and EEE have nothing in common with ASM and ADDM. > > > But it all sounds like BS to me. > > Have you considered working for IBM? You suffer from rampant acronymitis. > Was I the only one getting bored with this thread until OTC turned up? -- Clive