RE: Synopsis of a database crash and recovery (or time to bash

IMHO Poorly configured and (or) administered Unix based systems can be just as bad as poorly configured and (or) administered NT based systems.

NT, when setup correctly for Oracle (and any correctly setup server for Oracle, Unix or otherwise, should be dedicated to running Oracle, nothing else), with a good set of correctly configured fault tolerant disks, can be just as reliable as Unix.

In the last 18 months of live running, our NT based database has only had to be rebooted once for a reason attributable to the OS (we've had a couple of hardware failures, but they would have taken out a Unix box as well), and that problem was cured by a scheduled reboot, it hadn't crashed.

If your database is over 100Gb (and ours is approaching that size with approx 100 concurrent users) then Unix is probably the way to go for now - but watch out, NT WILL catch up.

STEVE (donning flameproof suit)

>----------
>From: rsands_at_lendleaserei.com[SMTP:rsands_at_lendleaserei.com]
>Sent: June 12 2000 16:08
>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>Subject: Re: Synopsis of a database crash and recovery (or time to bash
>
>

snip
>
>NT databases can be dangerous. Not only is the os less reliable,
>(IMHO) the ease of setup can create a false sense of security/
>competence and the defaults are set to keep things simple, not
>always the best approach. I agree with all the 'lessons' that
>have been posted: stay on unix when possible, configure carefully,
>run frequent backups, monitor them closely and test frequently.
>Also, be certain that you and the sys admin really understand
>each other when discussing what's actually behind a mount point!!
Received on Mon Jun 12 2000 - 10:08:33 CDT