Re: Clash of the DBs in eWeek

HI Igor,

All I meant was that I couldn't get to the article because sql server couldn't except
more connections.

I have only "browsed" the article but found it interesting that the db that was hard to use "dusted" all the ones that were "easy" when they had no
help from "Oracle Experts".

John

ineyman_at_perceptron.com wrote:

>Do you mean it was SQL Server DBAs tuning Oracle in this test, because
>that's what they are using for their web-site?
>
>Igor Neyman, OCP DBA
>ineyman_at_perceptron.com
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:58 PM
>
>
>>Interesting, I went to the web page and clicked on the link
>>
>>"Putting database performance to the test" and got the following message
>>
>>Could not Connect to DB:
>>[Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][TCP/IP Sockets]SQL Server does not
>>exist or access denied.
>>
>>Oh well, maybe they were mad because they lost!
>>
>>John
>>
>>sorr_at_rightnow.com wrote:
>>
>>>At first glance it looks like they could have done more to tune Oracle.
>>>Certain tables could have been cached (or buffer pools could have been
>>>used). They're only using a 4K db block so it would have been nice to see
>>>tests with 8K and 16K db blocks. Sort area size may need tuning. I'd like
>>>
>to
>
>>>see some tkprof on the queries and see what the most expensive queries
>>>
>are
>
>>>in terms of CPU, I/O, and number of executions. It would be nice to see
>>>database results on Linux... It would be cool to see what some focused
>>>tuning efforts could do but who has time for that?
>>>
>>>Anyone have any other tuning suggestions for eWeek?
>>>
>>>Time for the tuning DBA guru's to shine. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 9:53 AM
>>>To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>>>
>>>
>>>Anybody happen to see the cover story on the 02/25/2002 iss of eWeek
>>>
>titled
>
>>>"Database Clash"?
>>>
>>>The pretty graphs say that their tests showed that Oracle and MySQL
>>>
>rocked
>
>>>the other DBs they tested (including MS SQueaL Server). So I
>>>
>investigated.
>
>>>I went to http://www.eweek.com/ and downloaded the "Online Exclusive:
>>>Download our configuration and tuning scripts".
>>>
>>>According to the Oracle setup docs in there, they're NOT using MTS and
>>>processes in init.ora is 150. So then how did they test for 1000
>>>"concurrent Web clients"?
>>>
>>>Anyone have a thought?
>>>
>>>
>>>Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
>>>Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI
>>>
>USA
>
>>
>>--
>>Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
>>--
>>Author: Ora NT DBA
>> INET: orantdba_at_netscape.net
>>
>>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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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).
>>
>

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Ora NT DBA
  INET: orantdba_at_netscape.net

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: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (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).