Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows

From: Eric D. Pierce <>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:41:35 -0800
Message-ID: <>

On 6 Feb 2001, at 7:01, Jeffery Stevenson wrote:

Date sent:              Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:01:30 -0800
To:                     Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <>

> ... BTW, I use Win2K here for my desktop box. It runs
> fairly well (and surprisingly even runs faster than NT)...the Oracle db I
> have running on it runs nicely. I can usually leave my system up and
> running for a couple of months before encountering any oddities/lock-ups.

Sounds good, thanks for the feedback.

> system is really only as good as the people that maintain it (and some
> people are just better at it than others).

That seems to be the conventional wisdom about NT/Win2k. Our campus NT/Win2k SAs (&network engineers) are really smart guys, so I don't think we will have problems.

Also, fortunately it seem there is quite of bit of good quality free tech support material that the user community has out there on the web.

> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 7:46 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Ep,
> I have 8i running concurrently on a Win2k system with SS7, and have to say
> that it still runs like a dream. Like I mentioned earlier Oracle is still my
> favourite databeast, but there are a few things that still cough and
> splutter - like OEM for example.

The Oracle tech support person I talked to yesterday said that you need *more* than 256Mb RAM for OEM. They suggested at least 128Mb more than 256Mb, and to make sure that you have good disk I/O on the box to mitigate OS swapping issues.

They also said to avoid AD like the plague (unless you *REALLY* undestand AD architecture/implementation, and are able to make sure every singe little thing related to AD on the whole network is done exactly the same on each node).


>From what Oracle tech support said, we will probably *eventually*
end up with the following (after a year or so):

  1. Oracle9i RDBMS (upgraded from 8.1.6 and WebDB 2.2?) on a "dedicated" Win2K (or whistler).
  2. Oracle Portal (and/or other web server stuff) on a separate "middle-tier" server machine - could be NT4, or Win2k (or maybe Linux if the SAs get brave!)

    (possible share with other departments using Oracle,

     or we will use our old departmental Netware3 box, 
     reformatted with NT4/Win2k)

   (Portal shouldn't/can't run on the same box as 9i RDBMS)

3) OEM on a beefy NT4, or Win2k "pro" desktop

    (this moves the flakiness off the 8i/9i RDBMS box)


> I have been using Win2k for around 4 months now and have NEVER seen a BSOD
> (Blue Screen of Death), I reboot quite often - granted - but that is only
> because LookOut keep trying to dial my mail server




if you really don't need Outlook (calendar, Exchange compatibility, or whatever for Lyris), check out , David Harris is going to have a new/improved version of Pegasus Mail out soon (better IMAP client support and so forth), and his next "Mercury/32" mail server will have an IMAP module.


> All in all Win2K is far and above NT 4 in my view. File management is
> handled a lot better

Oh yea.


> Give it a try Eric, if you are used to NT, you may be pleasantly suprised..

Server-wise, we are migrating from Oracle7.3/Netware3 (gasp), not NT4. My goal was, if possible, to not get "stuck" with NT4 while the rest of the world was moving on to better things. This was with hope that Win2k will work good for a couple of years, or at least if we have to go Whistler in a year or so, it will be easier to do that from Win2k than from NT4 (?). Everyone around here hates server OS upgrades. The tendency is to get something working, and leave it alone for as long as possible (which is why we are still on Netware3/Oracle7.3!).

thanks again,
(also thanks to everyone else that contributed to the thread) ep


> -----Original Message-----
> Pierce
> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 07:06
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L


>> My assumption is that Win2k/Oracle8 is "ok". Are there any
>> horror stories out there about running Oracle8 on Win2K
>> where running on NT4 would have been better?


Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
Author: Eric D. Pierce

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
Received on Tue Feb 06 2001 - 13:41:35 CST

Original text of this message