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 : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: syborg who wrote (8895)	11/19/1998 6:42:00 PM
From: Michael Olin	Respond to of 19080

I don't see the database machine as a large volume device. I see it as a departmental, workgroup or application specific device. Once you get into large (and I don't mean VLDBs) databases or high volume transactional systems there are just too many architectural and tuning variables to use a commodity appliance. I would not expect to be doing any sort of table partitioning, OS buffer tuning, db cache sizing and the like on a database machine. I would use that machine to plug in and go for smaller stuff. This may not be exactly what Larry has in mind, but it is the niche that I think an appliance works well in. It also should compete very effectively against a SQL Server/NT solution. -Michael

To: syborg who wrote (8895)	11/20/1998 3:00:00 AM
From: Hardly B. Solipsist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

I don't understand why people express concern about the development work here. You know that the "raw iron" is really hacked up Linux or Free BSD. So the porting effort is getting the latest release and pulling out the relevant parts. I think that administration and marketing issues are what's of interest here. Getting a database to work isn't that hard, given a free O/S of reasonable quality (and friends that use Linux say that it's a lot better than that).