Orbitz dumps RAC for better reliability

[Keith]

I thought RAC users should know. No sense in self imposed ignorance eh?
Quoted from computer world:

"It was an [Oracle] database issue, and we decided to make an
architectural change to the site, a change that will put us in a
position to move forward with even higher reliability," Jouzaitis said.
"The site is performing great now."

Jouzaitis said that as a result, Orbitz is no longer using Oracle
Corp.'s 9i Real Application Clusters database software.
[..]

The Orbitz outage comes at a time when Oracle is touting its
"unbreakable" software in an extensive marketing campaign. "Unbreakable"
refers to a database that will not go down, even if the server or the
site fails. Oracle is also in the midst of a hostile takeover of rival
PeopleSoft and is trying to project a customer-friendly image.

Please see full article here:
[url]http://www.computerworld.com/databasetopics/data/software/story/0,10801,83186,00.html[/url]

[Orville]

Truth in advertising.

Postgresql.
The free database for the business whose data is worth
even less.

Customer testimonials:
"100% of the data was gone!"

Support and service:
This is the only article in this thread

The full story here:

[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a8uqet%241vr7%241%40jupiter.hub.org[/url]

Subject: database crash w/missing data [urgent]
This is the only article in this thread
View: Original Format
Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.general
Date: 2002-04-09 06:31:17 PST

Hello,
Yesterday I had a crash that cost me a week's worth of data.
Please not this may not be the fault of postmaster, but I'm
still in a bad way. We had some network problems and had
to reboot the computer, using /sbin/reboot. When the computer
started up and we ran the postmaster startup script, all of
our databases were acting funny.

100% of the data was gone! From the shell if you went
select * from company, postgres reports 0 tuples! (but returns
the schema). The funny thing was, if you went \d company, I
would get the message 'relation company does not exist'. Also,
\d would not list the relations. This was true for all the
relations for all the databases.

Please not I was running fsync off for this database.

Because this database was running our customer management
system, I had no choice but to restore from backup.

Is there any possibility of restoring the missing data?

[Keith]

Hello?? He reboot the machine without shutting down the database or had
a system crash. I have done this on test machines many times and came
back without data corruption, however. Also use a journaling file system
or use Postgresql replication. The newer versions of PGSQL are better
than ever and only getting better. I don't think this was a PGSQL issue
at all. Having run PGSQL for 2 1/2 years with PGSQL acting as a database
for syslog and apache logs for many machines, I have never experienced
curruption or failure. It is rock solid. I am sure .ORG will tell you
the same.

He also was not doing WAL [url]http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.3/static/wal.html[/url]

A few smart things like journaling FS, WAL and UPS with isolation
transformers can go a long way in mitgating stupid problems.

Orville wrote:

> Truth in advertising.
>
> Postgresql.
> The free database for the business whose data is worth
> even less.
>
> Customer testimonials:
> "100% of the data was gone!"
>
> Support and service:
> This is the only article in this thread
>
> The full story here:
>
> [url]http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a8uqet%241vr7%241%40jupiter.hub.org[/url]
>
> Subject: database crash w/missing data [urgent]
> This is the only article in this thread
> View: Original Format
> Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.general
> Date: 2002-04-09 06:31:17 PST
>
> Hello,
> Yesterday I had a crash that cost me a week's worth of data.
> Please not this may not be the fault of postmaster, but I'm
> still in a bad way. We had some network problems and had
> to reboot the computer, using /sbin/reboot. When the computer
> started up and we ran the postmaster startup script, all of
> our databases were acting funny.
>
> 100% of the data was gone! From the shell if you went
> select * from company, postgres reports 0 tuples! (but returns
> the schema). The funny thing was, if you went \d company, I
> would get the message 'relation company does not exist'. Also,
> \d would not list the relations. This was true for all the
> relations for all the databases.
>
> Please not I was running fsync off for this database.
>
> Because this database was running our customer management
> system, I had no choice but to restore from backup.
>
> Is there any possibility of restoring the missing data?

[Keith]

Stonebraker's original contribution is far different from today's
PostgreSQL. Also it is based on postgres not Ingres. Ingres goes back to
earlier work. Please research before you post.

Note: good designs comes often come from academia or research
institutions like Bell Labs. Relational Data Management came from an
academic and researcher, E.F. Codd. Larry and his cohorts simple ripped
off the research paper.

In my opinion, Oracle today is simply an organization of Marketeers and
salespeople.

Nuno Souto wrote:

> Orville <hawaiian@bacon.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93BBCFD8D2F68hawaiianbaconcom@216.148.227 .77>...
>
>

>>Truth in advertising.

>
>
> Contradiction in terms?
>
>
>

>>Customer testimonials:
>> "100% of the data was gone!"

>
>
> What else? And look, it's not even clustered!
>
>
>

>>100% of the data was gone! From the shell if you went
>>select * from company, postgres reports 0 tuples! (but returns

>
>
> Look, this crap is based on Stonebraker's Ingres.
> Like the original, these idiots concentrated on
> "functionality" instead of making sure they had a
> solid data management engine.
> Like the original, it loses data at the drop of a hat.
> Like the original, if a layer of serious data management
> is added the performance goes out the window.
>
>

>>Please not I was running fsync off for this database.

>
>
> He can run fsync until the cows come home. The problem
> is and has always been the total wanton disregard for
> data security from the Stonebraker mob. They don't
> have a SINGLE person with data management experience
> ANYWHERE in their group! All a bunch of academics
> with pretentious titles and even bigger egos, that's all.
>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> [email]wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nosp[/email]am

[sybrandb@yahoo.com]

Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vhf46a464qn62@news.supernews.com>...

> Stonebraker's original contribution is far different from today's
> PostgreSQL. Also it is based on postgres not Ingres. Ingres goes back to
> earlier work. Please research before you post.
>
> Note: good designs comes often come from academia or research
> institutions like Bell Labs. Relational Data Management came from an
> academic and researcher, E.F. Codd. Larry and his cohorts simple ripped
> off the research paper.
>
> In my opinion, Oracle today is simply an organization of Marketeers and
> salespeople.
>

And what's wrong with that? Microsoft isn't a hair better, and it has
made Bill Gates rich and famous. How many RDBMS vendors have
implemented the Date and Codd theories to the letter. If you are such
an academic buff, you know the answer: 0 (ZERO)

You seem to live in the misapprehension you can market your favorite
free toy software with flames and rants to mature products.
Obviously, you'll never get as rich as Larry and Bill

No regards

Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle DBA

[Noons]

"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vhf46a464qn62@news.supernews.com...

> Stonebraker's original contribution is far different from today's
> PostgreSQL. Also it is based on postgres not Ingres. Ingres goes back to
> earlier work. Please research before you post.

You the one that should research. You seem to forget you're
talking with someone who has been in IT for 28 years.
Where the heck do you think Postgres got its name and origins
and initial research? Hint: that name started getting used in
the 80's. Cripes, some people are thick...

> Note: good designs comes often come from academia or research
> institutions like Bell Labs.

Who is discussing "good design"? I said the darn thing
is incapable of doing proper data management. What's
that got to do with "good design"? It's BASIC PLUMBING,
for cripes' sake!

> Relational Data Management came from an
> academic and researcher, E.F. Codd.

Listen, idiot: I said DATA MANAGEMENT, not Relational Data Management.
there is no such thing as the later. Can you JUST FOR ONCE make an
effort to understand what is being said?

> Larry and his cohorts simple ripped
> off the research paper.

Just like all the IBM mob, Ingres and DEC. What else is new?

> In my opinion, Oracle today is simply an organization of Marketeers and
> salespeople.

Oh dear! And all the competition isn't? Tsk,tsk....

Why don't you just wake up and smell the rows?
Here is a free hint: tells us all something we don't know?

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email]wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nosp[/email]am

[Mark D Powell]

Keith <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<vhf46a464qn62@news.supernews.com>...

> Stonebraker's original contribution is far different from today's
> PostgreSQL. Also it is based on postgres not Ingres. Ingres goes back to
> earlier work. Please research before you post.
>
> Note: good designs comes often come from academia or research
> institutions like Bell Labs. Relational Data Management came from an
> academic and researcher, E.F. Codd. Larry and his cohorts simple ripped
> off the research paper.
>
> In my opinion, Oracle today is simply an organization of Marketeers and
> salespeople.
>
> Nuno Souto wrote:
>

> > Orville <hawaiian@bacon.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93BBCFD8D2F68hawaiianbaconcom@216.148.227 .77>...
> >
> >

> >>Truth in advertising.

> >
> >
> > Contradiction in terms?
> >
> >
> >

> >>Customer testimonials:
> >> "100% of the data was gone!"

> >
> >
> > What else? And look, it's not even clustered!
> >
> >
> >

> >>100% of the data was gone! From the shell if you went
> >>select * from company, postgres reports 0 tuples! (but returns

> >
> >
> > Look, this crap is based on Stonebraker's Ingres.
> > Like the original, these idiots concentrated on
> > "functionality" instead of making sure they had a
> > solid data management engine.
> > Like the original, it loses data at the drop of a hat.
> > Like the original, if a layer of serious data management
> > is added the performance goes out the window.
> >
> >

> >>Please not I was running fsync off for this database.

> >
> >
> > He can run fsync until the cows come home. The problem
> > is and has always been the total wanton disregard for
> > data security from the Stonebraker mob. They don't
> > have a SINGLE person with data management experience
> > ANYWHERE in their group! All a bunch of academics
> > with pretentious titles and even bigger egos, that's all.
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> > Nuno Souto
> > [email]wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nosp[/email]am

Keith, E.F. Codd worked for IBM when he invented relational theory and
relational algebra to define and explain his theory. Bell Labs in its
hayday was ran as a business operation. Academia sometimes has some
good basic ideas, but it almost always fails in any attempt to bring
them out into the real world.

Also was not Postgres based on Ingres so if PostgresSQL is based on
Postgres and Postgres was based on Ingres then it seems reasonable to
say that PostgresSQL is based on Ingres. However, just because a
piece of software is based on an earlier version does not mean it
inherits all of the flaws or good features of the prior version. Code
changes, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse.

Getting back to Orbiz. I have yet to follow a link to an article that
actually explains the problem actually encountered. One of the
articles listed the May transaction numbers. If the system worked
then, why is it failing now? What, if anything, changed? Without
facts, speculation about the problem is just that, speculation.

As far as PostgreSQL being a good database. It may suitable for a lot
of uses; however, the last I knew when you delete a row in PostgreSQL
the row is actually marked as logically deleted and you have to run a
utility which takes exclusive control of the target table to
physically delete the rows and reclaim space. When the economy is
good my client requires 24x6.9 access. The small window we get to
move changes into production is way too short to clean up deleted
data. Our applications require an rdbms that can handle concurrent
insert, update, and delete access to the same table from multiple
batch and online processes. Oracle provides that kind of access with
good performance. When PostgreSQL can do that, I will consider it as
an option.

-- Mark D Powell --

[Keith]

Noons wrote:

>
> You the one that should research. You seem to forget you're
> talking with someone who has been in IT for 28 years.
> Where the heck do you think Postgres got its name and origins
> and initial research? Hint: that name started getting used in
> the 80's. Cripes, some people are thick...

I am afraid you are the one that is thick. postgres is a redesign with
fresh ideas. Either way.. PostgreSQL 7.3 is a more developed product
from what Stonebraker left. Comparing todays PGSQL to Ingres, 25 years
ago, is daft.

>>Note: good designs comes often come from academia or research
>>institutions like Bell Labs.

> Who is discussing "good design"? I said the darn thing
> is incapable of doing proper data management. What's
> that got to do with "good design"? It's BASIC PLUMBING,
> for cripes' sake!

??
Last time I checked.. PGSQL was working well for the last 2 1/2 years
without failure. BASIC PLUMBING must be working. LOL

>

>>Relational Data Management came from an
>>academic and researcher, E.F. Codd.

>
>
> Listen, idiot: I said DATA MANAGEMENT, not Relational Data Management.
> there is no such thing as the later. Can you JUST FOR ONCE make an
> effort to understand what is being said?
>

If you read the above statement clearly you would have understood that
the RDBMS statement was giving an example of enduring designs from
research oriented/academic people. Why are you mixing DATA MANAGEMENT
with this? You are the one condemning academics. Perhaps you are the IDIOT?

>

>>Larry and his cohorts simple ripped
>>off the research paper.

>
>
> Just like all the IBM mob, Ingres and DEC. What else is new?

Considering the paper came from an IBM researcher, paid by IBM, I can
hardly think that they ripped it off.

>

>>In my opinion, Oracle today is simply an organization of Marketeers and
>>salespeople.

>
>
> Oh dear! And all the competition isn't? Tsk,tsk....

Not to the extent that Oracle is, in my opinion. There is capitalism and
there are perverse examples of it. The latter, like Enron, usually wind
up falling on their swords.

[Niall Litchfield]

"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell@eds.com> wrote in message
news:2687bb95.0307180450.c71eba6@posting.google.co m...

> When the economy is
> good my client requires 24x6.9 access.

Go for the full 24x7. 7 hours a day 24 days a month. No problems.


--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer
******************************************

[Noons]

"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:vhg6kemtih5s6d@news.supernews.com...

> from what Stonebraker left. Comparing todays PGSQL to Ingres, 25 years
> ago, is daft.

25 years ago? Now I see where you got your problems from...

> Last time I checked.. PGSQL was working well for the last 2 1/2 years
> without failure. BASIC PLUMBING must be working. LOL

Turn off the power half way through an update
and watch what happens to your data consistency.
Ah, that's right: that's a minor detail for the
likes of you. What's important is the "good design"...

> >>Relational Data Management came from an
> >>academic and researcher, E.F. Codd.

> >
> >
> > Listen, idiot: I said DATA MANAGEMENT, not Relational Data Management.
> > there is no such thing as the later. Can you JUST FOR ONCE make an
> > effort to understand what is being said?
> >

>
> If you read the above statement clearly you would have understood that
> the RDBMS statement was giving an example of enduring designs from
> research oriented/academic people. Why are you mixing DATA MANAGEMENT
> with this? You are the one condemning academics. Perhaps you are the IDIOT?

Up there, very clearly, it is written BY YOU:
"Relational Data Management".
Now, you claim you wrote RDBMS. I am NOT "mixing"
data management, I STARTED with it! It's much more
important than your "design" ideas. Read the whole
thread again, moron!

> > Just like all the IBM mob, Ingres and DEC. What else is new?

>
> Considering the paper came from an IBM researcher, paid by IBM, I can
> hardly think that they ripped it off.

Who is "they"? Ingres and DEC? Can you read a phrase of more
than three words? As for IBM: the paper from Codd was done
while he was in their employment. His development of the
research into a usable theory happened long after he'd left.
IBM ripped him off like all the others. No secret to anyone:
Ted Codd himself openly referred to how he was the only one
who never made any $$$ out of his work.
IBM is as guilty of rip-off as any other.

>
> Not to the extent that Oracle is, in my opinion.

Your opinion is just that.

> There is capitalism and
> there are perverse examples of it. The latter, like Enron, usually wind
> up falling on their swords.

Oh, grow up! Look at what IBM has done all their existence
and then come back here with your "morals"!

--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
[email]wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au.nosp[/email]am

[Frank Foss]

<sybrandb@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> No regards

Ouch...

>
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA

Frank Foss
Junior Oracle DBA

[rkusenet]

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs@onwe.co.za> wrote

> Here's one at you. I run the following SQL (no hints, just vanilla
> flavoured SQL):
> SELECT count(*) FROM very_large_table.
>
> Less than 3 seconds laters (2.07 to be precise), I get an answer of
> 77.8 million rows.
>
> There are no tricks (like pre-calculated totals). Just standard Oracle
> features. Table is partitioned. Table uses local indexes, including
> bitmap indexes.
>
> Okay, now you pick your database of choice, and tell me how you can do
> it better and faster.

I don't know whether this is a troll, but I ran the same query on
a large table (69 million rows) in our Informix server and it was
timed (by unix time command) as follows:-

real 0m1.06s
user 0m0.04s
sys 0m0.02s

ravi