--_a076eae8-c364-43ae-8b12-9e1e581cb6e5_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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,
su=
ch 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
case=
s.
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
wo=
uldn't want to run it on those nifty new T2 processors.
-G
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:01:14 -0700
> From: damorgan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: So now Informix has RAC
> To: informix-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=20
> Obnoxio The Clown wrote:
> > ibmsoftwarequestions@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
> >> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 sup****ting
f=
ull
> >>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last version of IDS
onl=
y
> >>> sup****ted
> >>> reads on secondary nodes, the company said."
> >> Great news from IBM and shows continued commitment to Informix and
> >> developing Informix technology.
> >=20
> > I don't think it's fair to compare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will
sca=
le.
> > :o)
>=20
> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh.
>=20
> 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.
> --=20
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Wa****ngton
> damorgan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(replace x with u to respond)
> _______________________________________________
> Informix-list mailing list
> Informix-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.iiug.org/mailman/listinfo/informix-list
_________________________________________________________________
Back to work after baby=96how do you know when you=92re ready?
http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparenting/articleNW.aspx?cp-do***entid=3D=
5797498&ocid=3DT067MSN40A0701A=
--_a076eae8-c364-43ae-8b12-9e1e581cb6e5_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<style>
..hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class=3D'hmmessage'>
16 nodes?<br>Kind of puny when you think of it.<br>But what is Amazon
doing=
with their RAC? Load Balancing and uptime?<br><br>I really wonder what
con=
figuration of IDS would be comparable. But alas, such a benchmark would
vio=
late Oracle's License, so we'll never know.<br><br>What happens when Grid
c=
omputing starts to take off?<br>Or Data Warehousing as A Service (DWaaS) ?
=
(Not that I believe in DWaaS as a viable business model...)<br><br>The
poin=
t is that you can only toss so much hardware at a problem until you hit a
m=
ax performance "wall".<br><br>Sorry Daniel, but when you have 128 "nodes"
i=
n you RAC, then you have shown scalability. And even that may be small for
=
some of the potential use cases.<br>And even 128 "nodes" could be
considere=
d small down the road.<br><br>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
p=
rocessors.<br><br>-G<br><br><br><br><br>> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008
10:01:1=
4 -0700<br>> From: damorgan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: Re: So now
Inform=
ix has RAC<br>> To: informix-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> <br>> Obnoxio The
=
Clown wrote:<br>> > ibmsoftwarequestions@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:<br>>
&=
gt;> On 29 Apr, 22:44, dcrunch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:<br>> >>>
ht=
tp://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/IBM-UnCages-Cheetah-2-Data-Server/<br>>
=
>>><br>> >>> "IDS (Informix Dynamic Sever) 11.5,
code-=
named "Cheetah 2," builds on<br>> >>> the<br>> >>>
=
failover-recovery capabilities of its predecessor by now sup****ting
full<br=
>> >>> read/write transactions across all nodes. The last
versi=
on of IDS only<br>> >>> sup****ted<br>> >>> reads
on=
secondary nodes, the company said."<br>> >> Great news from IBM
a=
nd shows continued commitment to Informix and<br>> >> developing
I=
nformix technology.<br>> > <br>> > I don't think it's fair to
c=
ompare Cheetah 2 to RAC: Cheetah 2 will scale.<br>> > :o)<br>>
<br=
>> Unlike those 16 node RAC clusters at Amazon.com eh.<br>> <br>>
=
But heck it is safer to trumpet something that has never been put
into<br>&=
gt; production than to look at examples of sites that have been running
for=
<br>> years.<br>> -- <br>> Daniel A. Morgan<br>> University of
=
Wa****ngton<br>> damorgan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(replace x with u to
respond)<=
br>> _______________________________________________<br>>
Informix-li=
st mailing list<br>> Informix-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
http://www.iiug.org/=
mailman/listinfo/informix-list<br><br /><hr />Back to work after baby=96
<a=
href=3D'http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparenting/articleNW.aspx?cp-docu=
mentid=3D5797498&ocid=3DT067MSN40A0701A' target=3D'_new'>how do you know
wh=
en you=92re ready?</a></body>
</html>=
--_a076eae8-c364-43ae-8b12-9e1e581cb6e5_--
|
