From oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Fri Oct 7 14:50:49 2005 Return-Path: Received: from air891.startdedicated.com (root@localhost) by orafaq.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j97Joi5Q014753 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:50:49 -0500 X-ClientAddr: 206.53.239.180 Received: from turing.freelists.org (freelists-180.iquest.net [206.53.239.180]) by air891.startdedicated.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j97JoRvX014706 for ; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:50:32 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 498961F82EC; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02106-07; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:49:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id BAE7C1F82D9; Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:49:28 -0500 (EST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=oGn18aE57zPsSyzQxCzker27BHYS1V/9fPDs0IzxkvIxXJ0wnv98PFAZJV3nIPdjCyRTob8OX7+V21UVnRgvNxG04refrFD/z24058aITtSfid1ePPiTMi+sLLZQj6ODnw5RE1Xb7HdXtYOhxszepjht99QMHetoK4BXhzgT7xU= Message-ID: <7765c8970510071247m3eae96c1i5a9d21b96c1ccf84@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 20:47:24 +0100 From: Niall Litchfield To: robyn.sands@gmail.com Subject: Re: *nix vs MS Cc: "Oracle-L@Freelists. Org (E-mail)" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_17639_20209205.1128714444052" References: X-archive-position: 26579 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-To: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: niall.litchfield@gmail.com Precedence: normal Reply-To: niall.litchfield@gmail.com X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p9 (Debian) at avenirtech.net X-mailscan-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-mailscan-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on air891.startdedicated.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP autolearn=no version=2.63 ------=_Part_17639_20209205.1128714444052 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 10/6/05, Robyn wrote: > > Everyone, > > We have a fairly large, truly mission critical database (Oracle > 9.2.0.6 ) at a remote site that is currently running on > Microsoft. In > the past, others have tried to convince mgmt that the system would be > more reliable on a unix os, but no one has ever been successful in > obtaining a project to make the change. It might be instructive to consider the reasons why the project hasn't ever happened previously. It may be that no evidence was presented, it maybe tha= t there are important vendor support or certification reasons, there may be cost issues HP-UX and SUN boxes don't come cheap and so on. It might also be instructive to consider the motives for suggesting the change. The tone of your post gives the impression not of reasoned argument but of a unshakeable faith in a particular brand of software (or more likel= y unshakeable doubt in windows). I don't say that this is the case, but appearances and tone can be important. To my way of thinking, the strongest case for moving this database to > unix is the track record of this application; it has had far more than > it's share of issues (bad backups, system crashes, corrupt blocks, > hung processes, cpu spikes and so on) even though it already gets more > care and feeding than other databases. (majority of our databases are > *nix) This is one aspect of what will be presented. bad backups and corrupt blocks don't make your case for you. They are not a function of the OS. It seems likely that cpu spikes are a application related rather than os related as well, but that should be measurable. That leaves you with system crashes and hung processes. If I were receiving such recommendations I'd want to see something along the lines of how much these events have cost my business in the last year (quarter or 6 months maybe) and a justified suggestion as to by how much these events would be reduced by making the change. -- Niall Litchfield Oracle DBA http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com ------=_Part_17639_20209205.1128714444052 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 10/6/05, Robyn <robyn.sands@gmail.com> wrote:
Everyone,

We have a fairly large, truly mission critical database (O= racle
9.2.0.6) at a remote site that is c= urrently running on Microsoft.  In
the past, others have tried= to convince mgmt that the system would be
more reliable on a unix os, but no one has ever been successful in
o= btaining a project to make the change.

It might be instructive to consider the reasons why the project hasn't ever happened previously. It may be that no evidence was presented, it maybe that there are important vendor support or certification reasons, there may be cost issues HP-UX  and SUN boxes don't come cheap and so on.

It might also be instructive to consider the motives for suggesting the change. The tone of your post gives the impression not of reasoned argument but of a unshakeable faith in a particular brand of software (or more likely unshakeable doubt in windows). I don't say that this is the case, but appearances and tone can be important.

To my w= ay of thinking, the strongest case for moving this database to
unix is t= he track record of this application; it has had far more than
it's share of issues (bad backups, system crashes, corrupt blocks,
h= ung processes, cpu spikes and so on) even though it already gets more
ca= re and feeding than other databases. (majority of our databases are
*nix)  This is one aspect of what will be presented.
=

bad backups and corrupt blocks don't make your case for you. They are not a function of the OS. It seems likely that cpu spikes are a application related rather than os related as well, but that should be measurable. That leaves you with system crashes and hung processes. If I were receiving such recommendations I'd want to see something along the lines of how much these events have cost my business in the last year (quarter or 6 months maybe) and a justified suggestion as to by how much these events would be reduced by making the change.
 

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com ------=_Part_17639_20209205.1128714444052-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l