Re: So now Informix has RAC

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>> >>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," builds on >>> the >>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now supporting full >>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS only >>> supported >>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >> developing Informix technology. > > I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will scale. > :o) Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. But heck it is safer to trumpet something that has never been put into production than to look at examples of sites that have been running for years. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >> ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >>> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>>> >>>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," builds on >>>> the >>>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now supporting >>>> full >>>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS only >>>> supported >>>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >>> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >>> developing Informix technology. >> >> I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will >> scale. >> :o) > Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. 16? Have the numbers come down or has someone finally realized that it's not about the total number of nodes in ALL clusters that matters. I seem to recall claims of over a hundred... Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

16 nodes? Kind of puny when you think of it. But what is Amazon doing with their RAC? Load Balancing and uptime? I really wonder what configuration of IDS would be comparable. But alas, such a benchmark would violate Oracle's License, so we'll never know. What happens when Grid computing starts to take off? Or Data Warehousing as A Service (DWaaS) ? (Not that I believe in DWaaS as a viable business model...) The point is that you can only toss so much hardware at a problem until you hit a max performance "wall". Sorry Daniel, but when you have 128 "nodes" in you RAC, then you have shown scalability. And even that may be small for some of the potential use cases. And even 128 "nodes" could be considered small down the road. I guess another issue would be the price per node running Oracle. I sure wouldn't want to run it on those nifty new T2 processors. -G > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:01:14 -0700 > From: damorgan@psoug.org > Subject: Re: So now Informix has RAC > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: > >> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: > >>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ > >>> > >>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," builds on > >>> the > >>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now supporting full > >>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS only > >>> supported > >>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." > >> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and > >> developing Informix technology. > > > > I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will scale. > > :o) > > Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. > > But heck it is safer to trumpet something that has never been put into > production than to look at examples of sites that have been running for > years. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list _________________________________________________________________ Back to work after baby–how do you know when you’re ready? http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparenting/articleNW.aspx?cp-documentid=5797498&ocid=T067MSN40A0701A

Serge Rielau wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>> ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >>>> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>>>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>>>> >>>>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," builds on >>>>> the >>>>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now supporting >>>>> full >>>>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS only >>>>> supported >>>>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >>>> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >>>> developing Informix technology. >>> >>> I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will >>> scale. >>> :o) >> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. > 16? Have the numbers come down or has someone finally realized that it's > not about the total number of nodes in ALL clusters that matters. > I seem to recall claims of over a hundred... > > Cheers > Serge Au contraire mon ami. It depends on what hardware you are running on. I just got back from Redwood Shores where I was attending a conference jointly sponsored by Oracle and IBM (http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php). You would be absolutely amazed what IBM's hardware folks had to say. RAC inside an LPAR, RAC between LPARs, extended RAC. Perhaps you'd like to share that information here: Perhaps not. <g> The largest RAC cluster of which I am aware was 128 nodes as separate servers. The largest possible on z9 and z10.... But the reality is that if 16 is what is needed why add the 17th or 70th? -- Daniel A. Morgan Oracle Ace Director & Instructor University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

DA Morgan wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: >> DA Morgan wrote: >>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>> ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >>>>> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>>>>> >>>>>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," builds on >>>>>> the >>>>>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now >>>>>> supporting full >>>>>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS >>>>>> only >>>>>> supported >>>>>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >>>>> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >>>>> developing Informix technology. >>>> >>>> I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will >>>> scale. >>>> :o) >>> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. >> 16? Have the numbers come down or has someone finally realized that >> it's not about the total number of nodes in ALL clusters that matters. >> I seem to recall claims of over a hundred... > Au contraire mon ami. > > It depends on what hardware you are running on. I just got back from > Redwood Shores where I was attending a conference jointly sponsored by > Oracle and IBM (http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php). I thought the promise was for infinite scaling on low cost hardware. Now you are saying less nodes on big boxes is better. hard to keep up with the messaging here. Aside we were talking about Amazon, not system z. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

Serge Rielau wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Serge Rielau wrote: >>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>>> ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >>>>>> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," >>>>>>> builds on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now >>>>>>> supporting full >>>>>>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS >>>>>>> only >>>>>>> supported >>>>>>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >>>>>> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >>>>>> developing Informix technology. >>>>> >>>>> I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will >>>>> scale. >>>>> :o) >>>> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. >>> 16? Have the numbers come down or has someone finally realized that >>> it's not about the total number of nodes in ALL clusters that matters. >>> I seem to recall claims of over a hundred... >> Au contraire mon ami. >> >> It depends on what hardware you are running on. I just got back from >> Redwood Shores where I was attending a conference jointly sponsored by >> Oracle and IBM (http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php). > I thought the promise was for infinite scaling on low cost hardware. > Now you are saying less nodes on big boxes is better. > hard to keep up with the messaging here. > > Aside we were talking about Amazon, not system z. > Cheers > Serge I am not an Oracle employee and my academic standing gives me full freedom to say it as it is. RAC scalability is well documented but, as you should know, is dependent upon cache fusion and the private network's latency. Obviously there is a difference between GigE and CPU speeds in an LPAR just as obviously there is a substantial difference between VMware and zVM. Lost cost hardware may well be a z10 with a nice green stripe. TCO is not the cost of the individual box ... it is the cost of the entire implementation both hard and soft. I have a customer right now with in excess of 10,000 Oracle servers. The cost of power is a significant part of their calculation. You and the pSeries and zSeries guys don't talk much do you. <g> PS: Flying to Munich on Friday so any lack of response will not be because of what you post ... rather too much decent beer. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

I love RAC. I have logged more overtime because of Oracle, it is _the_ most fabulous database ever concocted. Oracle, My father thanks you, my mother thanks you, and _I_ thank you! *>:o) -ID- Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > 16 nodes? > Kind of puny when you think of it. > But what is Amazon doing with their RAC? Load Balancing and uptime? > > I really wonder what configuration of IDS would be comparable. But alas, > such a benchmark would violate Oracle's License, so we'll never know. > > What happens when Grid computing starts to take off? > Or Data Warehousing as A Service (DWaaS) ? (Not that I believe in DWaaS > as a viable business model...) > > The point is that you can only toss so much hardware at a problem until > you hit a max performance "wall". > > Sorry Daniel, but when you have 128 "nodes" in you RAC, then you have > shown scalability. And even that may be small for some of the potential > use cases. > And even 128 "nodes" could be considered small down the road. > > I guess another issue would be the price per node running Oracle. I sure > wouldn't want to run it on those nifty new T2 processors. > > -G > > > > > > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:01:14 -0700 > > From: damorgan@psoug.org > > Subject: Re: So now Informix has RAC > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > > ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: > > >> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: > > >>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ > > >>> > > >>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," builds on > > >>> the > > >>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now > supporting full > > >>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS > only > > >>> supported > > >>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." > > >> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and > > >> developing Informix technology. > > > > > > I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will > scale. > > > :o) > > > > Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. > > > > But heck it is safer to trumpet something that has never been put into > > production than to look at examples of sites that have been running for > > years. > > -- > > Daniel A. Morgan > > University of Washington > > damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) > > _______________________________________________ > > Informix-list mailing list > > Informix-list@iiug.org > > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Back to work after baby' how do you know when you're ready? > <http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparenting/articleNW.aspx?cp-documentid=5797498&ocid=T067MSN40A0701A>;

DA Morgan wrote: > Serge Rielau wrote: >> DA Morgan wrote: >>> Serge Rielau wrote: >>>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>>>> ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >>>>>>> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>>>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," >>>>>>>> builds on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now >>>>>>>> supporting full >>>>>>>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of >>>>>>>> IDS only >>>>>>>> supported >>>>>>>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >>>>>>> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >>>>>>> developing Informix technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 >>>>>> will scale. >>>>>> :o) >>>>> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. >>>> 16? Have the numbers come down or has someone finally realized that >>>> it's not about the total number of nodes in ALL clusters that matters. >>>> I seem to recall claims of over a hundred... >>> Au contraire mon ami. >>> >>> It depends on what hardware you are running on. I just got back from >>> Redwood Shores where I was attending a conference jointly sponsored by >>> Oracle and IBM (http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php). >> I thought the promise was for infinite scaling on low cost hardware. >> Now you are saying less nodes on big boxes is better. >> hard to keep up with the messaging here. >> >> Aside we were talking about Amazon, not system z. >> Cheers >> Serge > > I am not an Oracle employee and my academic standing gives me full > freedom to say it as it is. > > RAC scalability is well documented but, as you should know, is > dependent upon cache fusion and the private network's latency. > Obviously there is a difference between GigE and CPU speeds in > an LPAR just as obviously there is a substantial difference > between VMware and zVM. > > Lost cost hardware may well be a z10 with a nice green stripe. > TCO is not the cost of the individual box ... it is the cost of > the entire implementation both hard and soft. I have a customer > right now with in excess of 10,000 Oracle servers. The cost of > power is a significant part of their calculation. > > You and the pSeries and zSeries guys don't talk much do you. <g> Oh yes, we do. I just wanted to hear the invalidatation of the RAC advertisement from your mouth/pen. Will be interesting to see how you (and Oracle) will manage maintain the mainframe and DB2 for system Z being a "legacy platform". Thank you Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 Solutions Development IBM Toronto Lab

"I am not an Oracle employee and my academic standing gives me full freedom to say it as it is." "I have a customer right now with in excess of 10,000 Oracle servers." Are you writing academically or commercially? If you have (as I suspect) a commercial axe to grind, is it not disingenuous to be claiming academic status? Pete A smile is a gift that is free to the giver and precious to the recipient. But giving someone the finger is free too, and I find it more personal and sincere.

On May 1, 6:38 am, Peter Collett <l...@hotmail.com> wrote: > "I am not an Oracle employee and my academic > standing gives me full freedom to say it as it is." > > "I have a customer right now with in excess of 10,000 Oracle servers." > > Are you writing academically or commercially? If you have (as I suspect) a commercial axe to grind, is it not disingenuous to be claiming academic status? > > Pete > A smile is a gift that is free to the giver and precious to the recipient. > But giving someone the finger is free too, and I find it more personal and sincere. Pete, He does this all the time. And I bust Jerry K's balls about the business side of the house. Not that I don't like Jerry or Cathy E, but that they don't tend to think outside the box. IBM actually makes things hard to get things done unless you have the top dog at IBM pushing for you. Its the IBM mentality that can kill a great product. Getting back to RAC .. I have a customer who is looking towards using grid computing to handle their next generation of products. Of course they're an Oracle shop and are thinking RAC. But what happens when RAC doesn't scale? Right now, in the architect's mind, that doesn't matter because the database layer is just for persistence. All of the updates will occur first in the in-memory data on the grid and then flow to the RAC server(s). The problem is that this design will not scale. You have to flow the updates to the database and then push then to the grid for performance reasons. This is why you need a clustering solution that not only can scale, but also allow for redundant data to be in synch. If Oracle could scale, then we'd see case studies and customer testimonials. We don't. And its not just Oracle. SQLServer also didn't scale well. There's an IDS success story that put things in to perspective. The really interesting success story is Metavante. I'm wondering if the UK Metavante is the same Metavante located in Milwaukee, WI ? If so, there's an interesting story ... ;-) -G

InDeep wrote: > I love RAC. > > I have logged more overtime because of Oracle, it is _the_ most fabulous > database ever concocted. > > Oracle, My father thanks you, my mother thanks you, and _I_ thank you! > > *>:o) Anyone that confuses employment with religion has a serious problem. RAC has been very very good to me. The fact that the customers have been happy too is a solid gold bonus. But if tomorrow I could do better writing COBOL and REXX I'd be polishing up an old cv. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Serge Rielau wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: >> Serge Rielau wrote: >>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>> Serge Rielau wrote: >>>>> DA Morgan wrote: >>>>>> Obnoxio The Clown wrote: >>>>>>> ibmsoftwarequestions@bellmicro.eu said: >>>>>>>> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@aim.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5, code-named "Cheetah 2," >>>>>>>>> builds on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now >>>>>>>>> supporting full >>>>>>>>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of >>>>>>>>> IDS only >>>>>>>>> supported >>>>>>>>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said." >>>>>>>> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and >>>>>>>> developing Informix technology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 >>>>>>> will scale. >>>>>>> :o) >>>>>> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh. >>>>> 16? Have the numbers come down or has someone finally realized that >>>>> it's not about the total number of nodes in ALL clusters that matters. >>>>> I seem to recall claims of over a hundred... >>>> Au contraire mon ami. >>>> >>>> It depends on what hardware you are running on. I just got back from >>>> Redwood Shores where I was attending a conference jointly sponsored by >>>> Oracle and IBM (http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php). >>> I thought the promise was for infinite scaling on low cost hardware. >>> Now you are saying less nodes on big boxes is better. >>> hard to keep up with the messaging here. >>> >>> Aside we were talking about Amazon, not system z. >>> Cheers >>> Serge >> >> I am not an Oracle employee and my academic standing gives me full >> freedom to say it as it is. >> >> RAC scalability is well documented but, as you should know, is >> dependent upon cache fusion and the private network's latency. >> Obviously there is a difference between GigE and CPU speeds in >> an LPAR just as obviously there is a substantial difference >> between VMware and zVM. >> >> Lost cost hardware may well be a z10 with a nice green stripe. >> TCO is not the cost of the individual box ... it is the cost of >> the entire implementation both hard and soft. I have a customer >> right now with in excess of 10,000 Oracle servers. The cost of >> power is a significant part of their calculation. >> >> You and the pSeries and zSeries guys don't talk much do you. <g> > Oh yes, we do. I just wanted to hear the invalidatation of the RAC > advertisement from your mouth/pen. > Will be interesting to see how you (and Oracle) will manage maintain the > mainframe and DB2 for system Z being a "legacy platform". > > Thank you > Serge As I said ... you don't talk much with the zSeries guys do you. Seriously ... Perhaps you should ask them about Montpellier France. Heading for the airport so au revoir. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I love RAC. Oracle has created more overtime for me, more billable hours than I could ever imagine. It is a gold mine, or even better, an oil well. Oracle people keep duplicating their databases, and creating more work, it's fantastic. I may well be able to retire off of Oracle. The fact that RAC doesn't scale, or that it runs like a snail is completely irrelevant to me. I don't care! It's a great product, great marketing, and best of all, management has an open-ended budget for it. I love it! Most of the people in shop know either about Oracle or MySQL, and completely discount everything else. It is amazing, just when you would think the IT market would be going nowhere, Oracle has done only what SOX could do, create more work, more hardware purchases, and just really great billable. It's a win-win for everyone. God bless Larry Ellison, he is god. DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> I love RAC. >> >> I have logged more overtime because of Oracle, it is _the_ most >> fabulous database ever concocted. >> >> Oracle, My father thanks you, my mother thanks you, and _I_ thank you! >> >> *>:o) > > Anyone that confuses employment with religion has a serious problem. > RAC has been very very good to me. The fact that the customers have > been happy too is a solid gold bonus. > > But if tomorrow I could do better writing COBOL and REXX I'd be > polishing up an old cv.

InDeep wrote: > I'm not sure what you're talking about. I love RAC. Oracle has > created more overtime for me, more billable hours than I could > ever imagine. It is a gold mine, or even better, an oil well. And now IBM, apparently since we've not seen the specifics or a production implementation, wants to do the same. <g> And I know for a fact Microsoft is working on duplicating it too. Funny how just a few years ago these very same folks were criticizing RAC and saying it was unnecessary. Hmmmm. While Serge and others worry about their corporate masters ... my interest is squarely in continuing employment for myself and my students. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)

Microsoft duplicating something is news since when ?? They have 15 different options for scaling and availability all of which so far don't do either. So adopting another technology that has a similar pattern shouldn't be news. They seem to have some sort of platform limitation too, hmm, can't seem to remember what .. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:24 PM, DA Morgan <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote: > InDeep wrote: > > I'm not sure what you're talking about. I love RAC. Oracle has > > created more overtime for me, more billable hours than I could > > ever imagine. It is a gold mine, or even better, an oil well. > > And now IBM, apparently since we've not seen the specifics or a > production implementation, wants to do the same. <g> And I know > for a fact Microsoft is working on duplicating it too. Funny > how just a few years ago these very same folks were criticizing > RAC and saying it was unnecessary. Hmmmm. > > While Serge and others worry about their corporate masters ... > my interest is squarely in continuing employment for myself > and my students. > -- > Daniel A. Morgan > University of Washington > damorgan@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) > _______________________________________________ > Informix-list mailing list > Informix-list@iiug.org > http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list >

I'm not sure you understand how limited RAC really is. In the grand scheme of things I really don't care if it's good or not--in fact I'm laughing all the way to the bank on RAC simply because it is exactly what management wants. They are getting exactly what they deserve and expect. It's a direct result of excellent marketing from Oracle. What you may have missed over the past few years is the wonderful job Microsoft did by lowering performance expectations across the board. After the demise of Informix, the IT community ( at least here in the USA ) wrapped themselves around SQL-Server, and other Microsoft crap, and allowed performance expectations from management to be rewritten to a much lower level. So anything today that Oracle delivers looks like gold. I love it. Even though I miss the glory days of the big database races in the '90s I'm quite content to see management happy with shyte. I get a bigger billable, more overtime, and having the knowledge that there is indeed better choices out there such as Informix and even DB2. Instead of offering these options I now look to a roadmap of how fast can I get certified as an Oracle DBA. It's like shooting fish in a barrel... I love it! I provision SAN storage for Oracle as fast as I can and they still need more. We'll burn through another 20+ TB in the next month, and I'm predicting yet another DMX before summer. All thanks to Oracle, God bless Larry Ellison he is god. DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> I'm not sure what you're talking about. I love RAC. Oracle has >> created more overtime for me, more billable hours than I could >> ever imagine. It is a gold mine, or even better, an oil well. > > And now IBM, apparently since we've not seen the specifics or a > production implementation, wants to do the same. <g> And I know > for a fact Microsoft is working on duplicating it too. Funny > how just a few years ago these very same folks were criticizing > RAC and saying it was unnecessary. Hmmmm. > > While Serge and others worry about their corporate masters ... > my interest is squarely in continuing employment for myself > and my students.