Re: ORACLE RAC CRASHES ORBITZ
Blair Adamache wrote: > It's possible that DB2, Informix, Sybase and 'C' compilers have all > caused crashes. Never heard of a C compiler crash that interrupted > production and got the same level of coverage as Orbitz did in eWeek and > Computerworld. I guess when you buy the back page of the Economist and > Businessweek and use the word "Unbreakable", you attract a little more > attention - the same way a blivet attracts flies. > > <snipped> So now Larry is responsible for the amount of news coverage? What has the amount of coverage got to do with anything? I thought we were involved in technology not marketing hyperbole. Leave the P/R nonsense to the weasels. Yep Oracle put out the phrase "Unbreakable". P&G put out the phrase "Whiter and brighter"? That's what they pay people in marketing to do in lieu of having real jobs. Or don't you remember when someone got paid a lot of money to add UDB to DB2? So why do you go after one and not the other? Perhaps some axe to grind because you have a religious devotion to one band of toothpaste over another? Unless you are holding a major portion of your assets in common shares on the NYSE or NASDAQ I'd keep in mind that we are all here for the paycheck. And who wins the marketing wars matters not one dollar to what we take home and use to pay the bills. If Oracle was at fault so be it. But jumping on Ault's posting with a reference about Larry buying the company to cover for a mistake crosses a line somewhere between irrational and paranoid. -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
Daniel Morgan wrote: > Blair Adamache wrote: > >> It's possible that DB2, Informix, Sybase and 'C' compilers have all >> caused crashes. Never heard of a C compiler crash that interrupted >> production and got the same level of coverage as Orbitz did in eWeek and >> Computerworld. I guess when you buy the back page of the Economist and >> Businessweek and use the word "Unbreakable", you attract a little more >> attention - the same way a blivet attracts flies. >> >> <snipped> > > So now Larry is responsible for the amount of news coverage? What has the > amount of coverage got to do with anything? I think the point is much more simple than you want to admit: * Oracle advertises "unbreakable". * (It is claimed that) Oracle broke. All I can say is that I hope that Oracle execs (who must have approved of the "unbreakable" campaign) have lots of seasoning to add taste to their feet. > I thought we were involved in technology not marketing hyperbole. Leave > the P/R nonsense to the weasels. Yep Oracle put out the phrase > "Unbreakable". P&G put out the phrase "Whiter and brighter"? That's what > they pay people in marketing to do in lieu > of having real jobs. Or don't you remember when someone got paid a lot of > money to add UDB to DB2? So why do you go after one and not the other? 1. I've not heard of anyone saying, "Here's some data that can't be stored in the Universal database." 2. I've not heard anyone claim that DB2 is the only "universal" database.
Darin McBride wrote: > Daniel Morgan wrote: > > > Blair Adamache wrote: > > > >> It's possible that DB2, Informix, Sybase and 'C' compilers have all > >> caused crashes. Never heard of a C compiler crash that interrupted > >> production and got the same level of coverage as Orbitz did in eWeek and > >> Computerworld. I guess when you buy the back page of the Economist and > >> Businessweek and use the word "Unbreakable", you attract a little more > >> attention - the same way a blivet attracts flies. > >> > >> <snipped> > > > > So now Larry is responsible for the amount of news coverage? What has the > > amount of coverage got to do with anything? > > I think the point is much more simple than you want to admit: > > * Oracle advertises "unbreakable". > * (It is claimed that) Oracle broke. > > All I can say is that I hope that Oracle execs (who must have approved of > the "unbreakable" campaign) have lots of seasoning to add taste to their > feet. > > > I thought we were involved in technology not marketing hyperbole. Leave > > the P/R nonsense to the weasels. Yep Oracle put out the phrase > > "Unbreakable". P&G put out the phrase "Whiter and brighter"? That's what > > they pay people in marketing to do in lieu > > of having real jobs. Or don't you remember when someone got paid a lot of > > money to add UDB to DB2? So why do you go after one and not the other? > > 1. I've not heard of anyone saying, "Here's some data that can't be stored > in the Universal database." > 2. I've not heard anyone claim that DB2 is the only "universal" database. At one level I agree with you. Nothing is unbreakable. It is impossible to conceive of a product that put on the wrong hardware, hosted on the wrong operating system, run through the wrong web server, used to execute bad code, and managed by a bunch of monkeys wouldn't break. Anyone that believes otherwise is dummer than a bag of hammers. Assuming you, and others, bear no relationship to the above referenced bag ... why the literal interpretation of what is clearly marketing hyperbole? -- Daniel Morgan http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)
"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan@exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3F25BD65.D1A1EA44@exxesolutions.com... > Darin McBride wrote: > > > Daniel Morgan wrote: > > > > > Blair Adamache wrote: > > > > > >> It's possible that DB2, Informix, Sybase and 'C' compilers have all > > >> caused crashes. Never heard of a C compiler crash that interrupted > > >> production and got the same level of coverage as Orbitz did in eWeek and > > >> Computerworld. I guess when you buy the back page of the Economist and > > >> Businessweek and use the word "Unbreakable", you attract a little more > > >> attention - the same way a blivet attracts flies. > > >> > > >> <snipped> > > > > > > So now Larry is responsible for the amount of news coverage? What has the > > > amount of coverage got to do with anything? > > > > I think the point is much more simple than you want to admit: > > > > * Oracle advertises "unbreakable". > > * (It is claimed that) Oracle broke. > > > > All I can say is that I hope that Oracle execs (who must have approved of > > the "unbreakable" campaign) have lots of seasoning to add taste to their > > feet. > > > > > I thought we were involved in technology not marketing hyperbole. Leave > > > the P/R nonsense to the weasels. Yep Oracle put out the phrase > > > "Unbreakable". P&G put out the phrase "Whiter and brighter"? That's what > > > they pay people in marketing to do in lieu > > > of having real jobs. Or don't you remember when someone got paid a lot of > > > money to add UDB to DB2? So why do you go after one and not the other? > > > > 1. I've not heard of anyone saying, "Here's some data that can't be stored > > in the Universal database." > > 2. I've not heard anyone claim that DB2 is the only "universal" database. > > At one level I agree with you. Nothing is unbreakable. It is impossible to > conceive of a product that put on the wrong hardware, hosted on the wrong > operating system, run through the wrong web server, used to execute bad code, > and managed by a bunch of monkeys wouldn't break. Anyone that believes otherwise > is dummer than a bag of hammers. > > Assuming you, and others, bear no relationship to the above referenced bag ... > why the literal interpretation of what is clearly marketing hyperbole? > > -- > Daniel Morgan > http://www.outreach.washington.edu/extinfo/certprog/oad/oad_crs.asp > damorgan@x.washington.edu > (replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply) > > A couple of issues ago in Scientific American they did an article on high reliability. In their research the authors looked at root causes and found that 51% of the time the cause was human error or cause.(poor administration etc.). I believe 15% of the time it was a hardware failure and the remainder was software failure. In all probability it was an administration error (which could happen to any system). Usually, these things are caused by more than one thing and it is a series of mistakes and mishaps that cause the problem. Unlikely Orbitz is going to make known all the gory details no matter who was at fault. (likely several entities - people, software, hardware, etc. - were at fault.) What is important is how the vendors respond to a crisis. Sure you don't want to have a crisis very often, but when you do how does the vendor respond. Having worked for many years with Oracle and other vendors (eg Microsoft) on some very critical issues I have to say Oracle beats Microsoft hands down in addressing and doing something about production critical problems.(no comment on DB2, or Informix, I never had a chance to test their support in a critical situation because I have not used their products very much.) Jim
Darin McBride <dmcbride@naboo.to.org.no.spam.for.me> wrote in message news:<5PhVa.547682$ro6.12475780@news2.calgary.shaw.ca>... > > 1. I've not heard of anyone saying, "Here's some data that can't be stored > in the Universal database." > 2. I've not heard anyone claim that DB2 is the only "universal" database. Surely you *must* have heard some1 "alleging" UDB is *not* DB2, not the same product, not the same code base? :D It all goes with the semantics... If you want to split hairs, I think there is *PLENTY* of prior experience showing it can be done in both directions. A suggestion is: let it rest until more is known. Otherwise, the opportunity is there for plenty of bidirectional dis-information exchange. Also known in technical circles as marketing BS. Cheers Nuno Souto wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nospam