Open Source for mission-critical systems (slightly OT)
Andrew Hammond
ahammond-swQf4SbcV9C7WVzo/KQ3Mw at public.gmane.org
Thu Jun 2 21:23:07 UTC 2005
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:15:40PM -0400, Andrew Hammond wrote:
>
>>That requires synchronous replication. Oracle RAC for example. Unless
>>you're willing to allow for committed transactions to be lost on
>>failover. To do RAC properly, you better forget running it on some pissy
>>little quad Xeon box.
>
> As far as I recall the database server that futurephoto moved to
> eventually (shortly after I left the company that build the site), was a
> pair of fridge size sun's. I think they might have been ultra450's or
The 450's are about the size of a beer fridge on it's back. But they
weigh more. 4500's were actually a little bit smaller boxes. Or at least
the look smaller. I always thought that was kind of strange.
> something like that. And yes they were running Oracle with synchornous
> replication. Porting our SQL was fairly trivial since we did all the
> logic at the application level and only used the database for storage and
> searching. Perfectly standard SQL.
This is the kind of crap design that comes from junior developers who
actually believe that database independance is a good thing. It's as
moronic as driving a car in only first gear all the time, so you can
avoid the learning curve of a new clutch when you change cars. And then
being proud of it while complaining that your car won't go fast enough
and tends to burn out it's engine.
>>And for those of you who think a quad xeon wasn't a pissy little box 3
>>or 4 years ago, we're talking about database servers here. Anyone who'd
>>spec a quad xeon for database work is clearly incompetent. The Xeon's
>>FSB architecture (even for NUMA Xeon systems) has totally insufficient
>>IO capacity for serious database work.
>
> Certainly true. Even an opteron is probably not equiped with enough I/O
> bandwidth to compete with the big guys, although certainly better than
> the xeon.
The Opteron's hypertransport architecture is actually better than some
of the lower end pSeries and Sun boxes. It doesn't hold a candle to the
massive IO capacity of the big ones though. PCI-e just can't compete
with RioG.
> At least Intel appears to be finally getting ready to scrap the netburst
> design and go back to the P6 derived design of the Pentium-M. About
> time. The netburst design didn't impress me much when I first saw it,
> the way previous new intel chips had done, and new amd chips. It just
> seemed wrong or backwards somehow. The more I read about it, the less I
> liked it.
Intel has nothing that can compete with AMD on multi-processor boxes.
- --
Andrew Hammond 416-673-4138 ahammond-swQf4SbcV9C7WVzo/KQ3Mw at public.gmane.org
Database Administrator, Afilias Canada Corp.
CB83 2838 4B67 D40F D086 3568 81FC E7E5 27AF 4A9A
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCn3i6gfzn5SevSpoRAr18AKCuv56SYyEVu8d3r7LiKiBfd6A5aACeLnLV
bmgY6aUWx9BtZpP/IvJNJ7w=
=28Aw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml
More information about the Legacy
mailing list