Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Curioser and Curiouser

RE: Curioser and Curiouser

From: <>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:27:40 +0200
Message-ID: <>

I totally agree with Niall and Cary.
One small addition is:
Excellently tuned (designed, developed, implemented) system will run 2-times faster on the 2-times faster hardware, will it? I mean, if one vendor can produce faster HW application runs faster on it. On faster platform users receive faster response time.

PS If faster HW price is lower then competitors

+371 9268222 (+2 GMT)

Thank you for teaching me.

On 2005.01.14 16:13:05 oracle-l-bounce wrote:

>When I was at Oracle, many, many customers would ask me "privately" which
>platform really is the best for running Oracle. The honest answer was
>I've seen Oracle run really well on just about every platform there is,
>I've seen Oracle run really poorly on just about every platform there is.
>The number one ingredient in the performance of Oracle is whether there's
>PERSON in the system who has the will and the skill to make it run
>efficiently. If you have that, you can run Oracle on anything.
>Cary Millsap
>Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd.
>* Nullius in verba *
>Upcoming events:
>- Performance Diagnosis 101: 2/23 Houston, 3/16 Salt Lake City
>- SQL Optimization 101: 2/7 Dallas
>- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas
>- Visit for schedule details...
>-----Original Message-----

>On Behalf Of Niall Litchfield
>Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 7:18 AM
>Subject: Re: Curioser and Curiouser
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:00:16 -0800, Jared Still <>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:27:26 -0500, Mladen Gogala
>> <> wrote:
>> > I can answer that, but being that I am a Linux fan, I don't really
>> > because Win2k (have not tried 2003) was consistently beating FC3
>> > machine, just as in Niall's case) by 5%-10%. This orange juice must
>> > too strong for me.
>FWIW turning on directIO (I have also setup for async io but here it
>is LGWR that is too slow) brought the FC3 score down to 84s which is
>slower than winXP, but I'm prepared to believe that this is probably
>about as good as it gets for this particular script - and quite
>possibly unnoticeable to end users.
>> It must be FD2 config.
>> I've run the same databases on RH 7.1 and Win2k, with the machines
>> being identical ( Dell PowerEdge 2550, 2 gig RAM)
>> Well, not quite identical. The Win2k box has more disks, and was
>> only one database.
>> The RH box was running 4 databases, 2 very active.
>> And it was still faster than the Win2k.
>So in fact not the same at all :).
>Its worth noting that my results are exactly worthless for comparing
>linux and windows as yet. One *might* conclude that the lgwr process
>on FC3/ext3 is less efficient than the lgwr process on Windows/NTFS,
>but that is about it.
>I'd actually expect Linux to do better in a controlled test of
>identical databases suffering similar external load and a real world
>mix of ddl and dml - i.e. something similar to Jared's anecdote. In
>particular someone on this thread mentioned scalability and I *expect*
>the mutli-process/shared memory architecture of *nix to do better than
>the private memory/multi threading architecture of windows.
>Actually I'd suggest one more thing. That in both cases the gains from
>tuning far outweigh the innate platfom differences. If this is
>consistently the case - and I have to confess that I expect it to be -
>then the question one should be asking is not (which is faster linux
>or windows) but how well do I think this thing is tuned?
>Niall Litchfield
>Oracle DBA

Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 08:26:55 CST

Original text of this message