Peoplesoft on Federated UDB?

[BadPony]

Anyone using Peoplesoft on a Federated UDB
(shared nothing)Environ ment on Open System Platforms?
Preferably AIX, but any war stories would be good.

TEA
EB-C

[Mark A]

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message
news:1075072958 .276429@yasure. ..

Add a node with shared nothing and your mean time to failure goes down
... not up. Add a node with shared nothing and your realized performance
per node goes down rather than remaining stable. Add or subtract a node
with shared everything ... and you don't need to rewrite a single line
of code, perform a shutdown, reparse and reload your data.
Shared nothing as implemented for parallel databases was specifically
created for very large IW databases where uptime was not as critical as
performance for large complex queries that typically access the entire
table. However, the use of RAID disk technology makes complete outages
somewhat unlikely.
Last time I looked TPC didn't give a .... about maintainability .
TPC is the Transaction Processing Performance Council, so maintainability is
not the primary consideration, especially since it cannot be objectively
measured. No one would argue that TPC benchmarks should be the sole criteria
for choosing a database product. For example, Oracle requires more DBA
support than DB2, an important consideration when choosing.

TPC benchmarks do, however, require fairly stringent rules about maintaining
data integrity (logging, transaction recovery, roll forward recovery, etc)
and concurrency (multiple users hitting the database at the same time) that
would be typical for a real-world production database.

The fact that they are part of the same database is meaningless. If you
lose the disks attached to node 6 of 10 what happens? Is that data live
anywhere else? Do the transactions seamlessly fail-over and continue
running?
Shared nothing was not designed for transactions. It was designed for
massive IW databases.
And , IIRC, DB2 on mainframes is shared everything ... not shared nothing.

That is basically correct.

[Mark Townsend]

> For example, Oracle requires more DBA

support than DB2, an important consideration when choosing.

Prove it. And don't quote me a lot of fly by night supposed analysts
whose main income seems to come from talking at DB2 user conferences.

[Mark Townsend]

Blair Adamache wrote:

Mark Townsend wrote, with liberal editing:

...

I guess "we" tend to not subscribe to the the

there is significant pressure to get function out.

Yes, you'll find that there is less pressure to get function out as your
market share falls.

Great, so you'll soon have some time to fix some bugs then.

[hrishy]

Hi

But still there is one vital difference the thread failed to address..

shared nothing --Biggest advantage is it is transparent to
applications... You never know from which node you get your data.

shared everything--You need to partition your application before
hand..as when you query

1)select * from dept where deptno=10 it wil go to node 1

2)select * from dept where deptno=20 it will go to node 2

well all those database that use shared nothing architecture (The
programmers have worked very very hard there ) have made the lives of
application developers much easier..

with shared everything..the application will have to be partitoned to
take advantage of the underlying shared everything architecture..

regards
Hrishy
"Mark A" <ma@switchboard .net> wrote in message news:<1s******* ********@news.u swest.net>...

"Daniel Morgan" <da******@x.was hington.edu> wrote in message
news:1075072958 .276429@yasure. ..

Add a node with shared nothing and your mean time to failure goes down
... not up. Add a node with shared nothing and your realized performance
per node goes down rather than remaining stable. Add or subtract a node
with shared everything ... and you don't need to rewrite a single line
of code, perform a shutdown, reparse and reload your data.

Shared nothing as implemented for parallel databases was specifically
created for very large IW databases where uptime was not as critical as
performance for large complex queries that typically access the entire
table. However, the use of RAID disk technology makes complete outages
somewhat unlikely.

Last time I looked TPC didn't give a .... about maintainability .

TPC is the Transaction Processing Performance Council, so maintainability is
not the primary consideration, especially since it cannot be objectively
measured. No one would argue that TPC benchmarks should be the sole criteria
for choosing a database product. For example, Oracle requires more DBA
support than DB2, an important consideration when choosing.

TPC benchmarks do, however, require fairly stringent rules about maintaining
data integrity (logging, transaction recovery, roll forward recovery, etc)
and concurrency (multiple users hitting the database at the same time) that
would be typical for a real-world production database.

The fact that they are part of the same database is meaningless. If you
lose the disks attached to node 6 of 10 what happens? Is that data live
anywhere else? Do the transactions seamlessly fail-over and continue
running?

Shared nothing was not designed for transactions. It was designed for
massive IW databases.

And , IIRC, DB2 on mainframes is shared everything ... not shared nothing.

That is basically correct.

[Mark A]

> > For example, Oracle requires more DBA

support than DB2, an important consideration when choosing.

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@ comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40******** ******@comcast. net... Prove it. And don't quote me a lot of fly by night supposed analysts
whose main income seems to come from talking at DB2 user conferences.

I don't think there is any way to "prove" it. My comments where based on my
personal experience, not what anyone else has told me.

I once hired an Oracle Consultant (form Oracle Corporation) to do a simple
single node basic install (no remote clients of any kind) and it took 2 days
(at $1400 per day). On another occasion, it took some other DBA's I hired a
week to get Oracle installed. About 5 years ago, I tried to install Oracle
on Windows and gave up after a few weeks (working part time on the install).

DB2 can normally be installed in an hour or two by a chimpanzee.

I will have to admit, that Oracle is a much more complex and feature rich
product, but I also think that cost of ownership is very high, especially
when it comes to personnel.

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark Townsend wrote:

> For example, Oracle requires more DBA

support than DB2, an important consideration when choosing.

Prove it. And don't quote me a lot of fly by night supposed analysts
whose main income seems to come from talking at DB2 user conferences.

Apparently another one of those that still thinks we run Oracle
databases from the command line. Perhaps we can provide them with
some sort of sedative if they ever see ASM and ADDM and become
agitated.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Daniel Morgan]

Comments in-line.

hrishy wrote:

Hi

But still there is one vital difference the thread failed to address..

shared nothing --Biggest advantage is it is transparent to
applications... You never know from which node you get your data.
Which amazingly enough is the same as shared everything except with
shared everything it is not only transparent ... it is meaningless
because the data is not associated with a node.
shared everything--You need to partition your application before
hand..as when you query
What have you been smoking? Today I taught a RAC class. Set up three
two-node clusters from scratch. We had 6 PCs, two switches, and one F810
NetApp NAS filer head. All data in a single datafile (meaning a single
tablespace) and accessed it seemlessly from all nodes of all three
clusters. Then sequentially pulled the plug on half the nodes and
watched the transactions fail-over in less than a minute.

Did we partition any data? Not one byte. I'd suggest you learn the
available architectures, federated, shared nothing, and shared
everything before trying to describe how they work.
1)select * from dept where deptno=10 it wil go to node 1
Not with shared everything.
2)select * from dept where deptno=20 it will go to node 2
Not with shared everything.

What goes to a node is based on load balancing and nothing else. Too
much load on node 1 ... transaction runs on 2.
well all those database that use shared nothing architecture (The
programmers have worked very very hard there ) have made the lives of
application developers much easier..
Right up until they add or subtract a node. With shared everything the
developers aren't involved in writing a single line of code beyon
stitching in TAF.
with shared everything..the application will have to be partitoned to
take advantage of the underlying shared everything architecture..

regards
Hrishy

What you don't understand would fill a book. Luckily that book ... has
already been written by Mike Ault.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books

It is the one I use to teach classes at the University of Washington.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)

[Mark Townsend]

>

DB2 can normally be installed in an hour or two by a chimpanzee.

I guess we don't get a lot of chimpanzee's installing the software, but
it's not difficult at all and can indeed be done by a reasonably clever
9 year old - see the first in the thread at http://tinyurl.com/32gs7

So tell me, how does Global Services actually get the chimps to wear the
suits ?

[Mark A]

> > DB2 can normally be installed in an hour or two by a chimpanzee.

I guess we don't get a lot of chimpanzee's installing the software, but
it's not difficult at all and can indeed be done by a reasonably clever
9 year old - see the first in the thread at http://tinyurl.com/32gs7

So tell me, how does Global Services actually get the chimps to wear the
suits ?

I am self employed, so I can't answer that one. I just want to know how
Oracle Consulting can charge $1400 per day to do a very simple Oracle
install and why does it take 2 full days.

[Daniel Morgan]

Mark A wrote:

For example, Oracle requires more DBA
support than DB2, an important consideration when choosing.

"Mark Townsend" <ma***********@ comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40******** ******@comcast. net...

Prove it. And don't quote me a lot of fly by night supposed analysts
whose main income seems to come from talking at DB2 user conferences.

I don't think there is any way to "prove" it. My comments where based on my
personal experience, not what anyone else has told me.

I once hired an Oracle Consultant (form Oracle Corporation) to do a simple
single node basic install (no remote clients of any kind) and it took 2 days
(at $1400 per day). On another occasion, it took some other DBA's I hired a
week to get Oracle installed. About 5 years ago, I tried to install Oracle
on Windows and gave up after a few weeks (working part time on the install).

DB2 can normally be installed in an hour or two by a chimpanzee.

I will have to admit, that Oracle is a much more complex and feature rich
product, but I also think that cost of ownership is very high, especially
when it comes to personnel.

Sorry Mark but academic freedom demands that I be honest here.

Anyone that took two days to install a single node shouldn't have made
it through the interview process unless your hardware and operating
systems were junk.

Today I did the following between 9am and 5:30pm:

Wired a network with two switches, a router, and three separate
networks. Installed Linux EL AS onto six machines from CD, installed the
Oracle installer and clusterware 9.2.0.1 and patched it to 9.2.0.4 on
the same six machines. Installed the Oracle software at 9.2.0.1 on all
six machines and patched it to 9.2.0.4 and then created three separate
databases including all tablespaces and tested fail-over from three RAC
clusters using a TAF aware Java client. This was done by two instructors
and six students ... and it included more than two hours of
whiteboarding during the course.

So am I going to believe any competent person did what you claim? No.
The operative word here being 'competent'.

There are plenty of people working with any technically advanced
product, Oracle, DB2, Informix, Sybase, etc. that are marginal. Next
time hire better. I've got students that I'd fail if it took them two
days to install a node and they'd be really happy with the money you
paid ... almost their entire tuition for my class for just one day of work.

--
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...ad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/e...oa/aoa_crs.asp
da******@x.wash ington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)