In your quote it is stated:
The result shows the continuing strength of shared-nothing ap proaches on data sets that can be logically broken up into smaller groups, or partitions. (Shared-nothing clusters are made up of servers that manage their own local memory and storage.) With this result, the top five TPC-C results are all on shared-nothing clusters.
However, as attractive as shared-nothing clusters are for some applications, many customers won't be able to take advantage of the technology, due to the centralized design of their databases. "About a third of our customers can take advantage of this scale-out architecture," said Mike Nikolaiev, director of database engineering at Compaq, in Houston.
The rest of the market will need to redesign their databases or choose shared-disk designs, such as that of Oracle Corp.'s Oracle Parallel Server, which accommodate a wider variety of data arrangements.
Rude, or anyone: Is DataCenter (or would it be SQL), a shared disk design? I didn't check, but I assume the test was not done using an Oracle DB, or am I wrong?
TIA
Duke |
