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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: reynoso who wrote (112994)	10/10/2000 1:45:08 AM
From: The Duke of URL©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

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