Re: 2xSMP vs RAC for failover - was Re: informix market share

DA Morgan said: > > Serge Rielau wrote: > >> Duly noted. Thoughts for the road: If you use a 2 node cluster and one >> goes down you're dead unless you kept load very low when the RAC system >> is up. That is the 2 node RAC cluster competes with a 2x4 SMP box which >> of course will price hardware wise the same (minus the 2 switches + >> disk). You did not price out the equivalent dataguard solution, btw. >> >> Cheers and bye >> Serge > > And Obnoxio's objection duly noted here so one closing thought and I too > end the thread. > > That quick comment being that you just build in one extra node so if > one burns itself to the ground ... you still have what you need. And > given the low cost of an extra node (a few thousands dollars): Who cares. Yes, Daniel. We all expect you to get the last word in. Tosser. -- Bye now, Obnoxio "C'est pas parce qu'on n'a rien ` dire qu'il faut fermer sa gueule" - Coluche did i mention i like nulls? heck, i even go so far as to say that all columns in a table except the primary key could/should be nullable. this has certain advantages, for example, if you need to insert a child record and you don't have a parent row for it, just do an insert into the parent table with the primary key value (everything else null), and voila, relational integrity is preserved. but this is, admittedly, a bit controversial among modellers. --r937, dbforums.com sending to informix-list