RE: Solaris vs Windows 2000

It is, but after a very brief overview, some of the decisions made leave me with knee-jerk questions.

Under "Case Two: 5,000-user manufacturing operation", why is there no tape backup spec'd for the Solaris side? Why get 21" monitors for office workers who will most likely run them at 800x600 anyway (speaking from experience)? What is the cause of a "36-month hardware refresh" for the Winders side, while the Solaris side has none? It also misses at least one key figure in hardware support cost.

If I were a PHB with at least some intelligence, this is what I'd question. The numbers looked padded and phony to me. And I hate -- nay, LOATHE -- Winders, especially for a server. Imagine what a MS bigot would come up with...

Rich

Rich Jesse                           System/Database Administrator
Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com              Quad/Tech International, Sussex, WI USA

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boivin, Patrice J [mailto:BoivinP_at_mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:25 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: Solaris vs Windows 2000
>
>
> That winface article makes a good read.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Patrice.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:09 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> Firstly, can I say that any NT/2K administrator that feels
> they need to
> install Microsoft Office (or just Outlook), and feels they
> need to upgrade
> the web browser for a production Oracle database system
> should be shot on
> site! The same goes for things like IIS (Microsoft's integrated "web
> server") as this again is a known security flaw.. Apache runs
> just fine on
> Win2K (Oracle installs it on the windows platform as well).
> The same also
> goes for Perl, and I believe Jared is most surely a Perl man!
>
> There is also no longer a 4 CPU limit on windows systems. This does of
> course depend upon the version of the Operating system that
> you buy, but
> Win2K "Datacentre Server" supports up to 16CPUs.
> (http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=7597)
>
> I stumbled across the following link a couple of weeks ago Jared, and
> book-marked it for later reading.. I still haven't managed to
> read it as
> yet, so can't comment, but it looks like it applies..
>
> http://www.winface.com/article.html
>
> Apart from the other URLs that you have already posted, I
> haven't seen any
> decent comparison sites out there.
>
> HTH
>
> Mark
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Morrow
> Sent: 12 November 2002 06:38
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
>
>
> Jared --
>
> I tend to agree with your statements. Although, personally,
> I tend to think
> that Windows NT/2000/XP is a wholly inappropriate environment for any
> enterprise
> database. The general reasons I tend to choose to back my statements:
>
> 1. Scalability. (I'm sorry, "clustering" is an
> availability solution,
> not a scalability one. If you can't grow beyond 4 CPUs [Intel's
> problem
> more than M$FT's, here] and need to, then an Intel
> platform is not
> for
> you.)
>
> 2. Managibility. I can do practically anything I need to
> on a unix box
> over a 300bps modem, if necessary. (This omits, of course,
> inserting
> media and hitting the power switch... oh, and
> installing oracle now
> that
> they have this java-based installer... fortunately, that's not
> *that*
> common of an occurance in ordinary "maintenance")
>
> 3. Did I mention scalability? Most *nix platforms scale
> in a much more
> "linear" fashion. (i.e. 2 cpu's are more likely to
> give you double
> the
> performance on a RISC-based system than on an x86 based
> one.) Note:
> I'm saying only that RISC systems tend to be *more*
> linear than x86
> ones.
>
> 4. Supportability. (yeah, I know, not really a word).
> I've supported
> Oracle on both (especially Oracle Applications).
> Personally, unix
> platforms tend to provide much more useful information when
> something
> does go wrong. The standard Microsoft error message of
> "it's broke"
> doesn't really tell me anything useful.
>
> 5. Security. How many security flaws have been found in
> 'doze? And
> don't
> even get me started on M$FT Look-out! (otherwise known as a
> security
> hole that occasionally delivers mail). It's also nice that *nix
> platforms are immune to all of the _really_common_
> virii that hit
> the
> news these days (Melissa, I Love You, etc.). (Not that *nix is
> truly
> immune to virii... but the big-bad-ugly-ones you hear
> about tend to
> exploit flaws in... hows that again? Right... Windows and
> Lookout...
> Although it helps somewhat that the *nix security model tends to
> compartmentalize things a bit more than windows does
> [by default]).
>
> 6. Do you *really* want all of the overhead of a
> tightly-coupled GUI on
> a
> _server_?
>
> Admittedly, Windows 2000 does appear to be far more stable
> than previous
> versions. And the NT-derivatives don't tend to crash in a
> wholesale manner
> like
> the Windows/386 derivatives ('95,'98,ME). But, personally, I
> should _NEVER_
> have to reboot a machine to upgrade/patch a web browser.
>
> -- James
>
> ==============================================================
> ==============
> ==
> James J. Morrow
> Nascent Systems, Inc.
> Dallas, TX
> mailto:jmorrow_at_warthog.com
>
> Jared.Still_at_radisys.com wrote:
> > Dear List,
> >
> > Believe me, I am not trying to rehash an old topic, start any
> > flame wars, nor look for supporting evidence for my admitted
> > bias toward unix operating systems.
> >
> > Now that that's out of the way, what I am trying to do is find
> > objective material comparing the use of MS Windows 2000
> > Server on Intel HW to Solaris on Sun HW.
> >
> > This is for an SAP implementation. We are currently running
> > SAP 4.0b on MS NT 4.0 SP 6, on Dell 4 CPU Servers. ( I forget
> > just which server )
> >
> > As part of our process to upgrade the system to 4.6c and more
> > recent versions of Oracle ( like 8.1.7 ), we are trying to do a
> > comparison of the features, benefits and advantages of using
> > Win2k Server and Solaris.
> >
> > Please don't refer me to such sites as www.kirch.net and
> > www.osdata.com. The information at www.kirch.net is dated
> > and applies to NT, not Win2k.
> >
> > osdata.com is a nice site, but doesn't really offer comparisons,
> > just information on each OS.
> >
> > There is quite a bit of material available at www.microsoft.com.
> >
> > Try:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/compare/
> >
> > PC Mag has a nice article comparing different platforms for use as a
> > webserver: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,6615,00.asp
> >
> > They actually chose IBM running Windows 2000.
> >
> > Windows 2000 is in use here as a server platform for one
> database that
> > is used as the backend to a rather troublesome application.
> The Win2k
> > server is running Oracle 8.1.6.2. The database has been
> bounced 2 or
> > 3 times in the last year.
> >
> > Once was to clear up a strange but non-fatal problem with
> Oracle. That
> > was
> > back in July, the previous system restart had been in December 2001.
> > Server
> > and database were up without interruption for 7 months.
> >
> > Though I prefer Solaris, I'm having a difficult time
> coming up with many
> > valid
> > reasons for recommending it over Win2k.
> >
> > A few that I do have:
> >
> > Sun service is superior to Dell service. They've proven
> this to us. ( We
> > have other
> > Sun machines in house )
> >
> > Sun scales better. At least on 32 bits. We're at 4 CPU's.
> If we need to
> > go past that
> > I would think we should go with Sun. I don't know about
> Win2k Advanced
> > Server, as it
> > is a 64 bit platform, and I think the licensing would go up
> quite a bit.
> >
> > I welcome all objective comparisons of Solaris and Win2k
> Server, whether
> > your own
> > thoughts, or a link or links to articles you are aware of.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jared

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Jesse, Rich
  INET: Rich.Jesse_at_qtiworld.com

Fat City Network Services    -- 858-538-5051 http://www.fatcity.com
San Diego, California        -- Mailing list and web hosting services
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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).