And of course, that it's rewrite #3 of OPS. I can't wait until #7 comes around. RDBMS never really worked until 7, so...

We're firing it up with RH3, no feedback yet.

-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Zito Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:56 AM To: toasters@mathworks.com toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: Oracle 10g RAC on filers

Similar to another response to this post, the compelling reason for 10g

really isn't the 64-bit-ness. In fact, there isn't even 10g for Opteron Linux yet, though there is 9i for Opteron Linux. The compelling reasons for 10g are:

-Low two-node introductory RAC pricing -Much easier performance tuning -Much improved RMAN implementation -A variety of handy-dandy tools that weren't around in 9i

On the flip side, 10g RAC is much more unstable than its 9i counterpart. So, its probably not a good idea, though it has nothing to do with 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Thanks, Matt

-- Matthew Zito GridApp Systems Email: mzito@gridapp.com Cell: 646-220-3551 Phone: 212-358-8211 x 359 http://www.gridapp.com

On Jul 8, 2004, at 6:52 PM, James Brigman wrote:

Sandy, et. al;

I happened to do some research on this very question today. There's a lot of smoke and mirrors to it yet.

To get any benefit out of 10g you need:

• a 64 bit CPU (AMD Opteron or Intel Itanium)
• 64 bit Linux (SuSE is the only one I know of yet)
• 4GB RAM minimum

Refer to: http://otn.oracle.com/software/products/database/oracle10g/htdocs/ win64_ readme.htm http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1103-997619.html http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/faq.htm http://www.intel.com/design/itanium2/

The NetApp doesn't care what the bits are, whether 32 or 64 bit.

What's your motivation for going 10g?

JKB