Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (34879)	8/29/2000 8:24:59 PM
From: paul	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 64865

Charles, Technically i wouldnt call the Compaq/IBM numbers a "cluster". They are using a common partitionable view to manually divide the database across separate servers. Chop up a database into 10 pieces and spread it across 10 servers. If a server goes down, well there goes a chunk of your data. I understand that Microsoft is reccomending that you have a redundant node for each server - i dont believe this redundancy is included in the tpc$/m since availability is not something that is measured by a tpc-c. I also wouldnt call it a cluster as there is no global file system or single point of manageability. I read an interview with Paul Flesscher - the head guy for sqlserver at Microsoft in sqlserver magazine (ok..i read it at a newstand) who conceded that "scale out" is not ideal with current database workloads - surprise! Clearly, the target for Sun was to regain leadership with US II against the IBM S80 which is more realistic competition than scaled out NT servers.