Re: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux

From: Dan Norris <>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:30:43 -0600
Message-Id: <>

Must be 9i then? Clusterware was introduced in 10g. In 9i on Linux and Windoze, Oracle Cluster Manager (oracm) served a purpose similar to what clusterware does today.


On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:24 AM, "Goulet, Richard" <  > wrote:

> AH, I see we've sparked another HOLY WAR, bout time.
> Well for one the Windows systems that we have around here are
> getting on in age. Yes they are Win2K and yes they are 32 bit
> because that's the way they were built by our wonderful friends at
> Dell. They also predate all of us in the department with a lot of
> history on how & why they were set up lost to the ether. Yes their
> running RAC, but that's about where it ends. There is no CRS or
> ASM running and believe it or not you can actually see the datafiles
> on the san. Really weird to say the least. There are 7 instances
> on each server & with only 16GB total memory they have been
> struggling since I signed on. Also why they were built as RAC
> system has been lost to the ether as well. The best we can get from
> memories is that Dell recommended it to preclude database
> unavaibility in the event of hardware failure (these machines have
> only 1 power supply). We're nearing the end of migrating them off
> of RAC and Windowze onto Linux and single node, single instance.
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA/NA Team Lead
> PAREXEL International
> From: Niall Litchfield []
> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:12 AM
> To: Goulet, Richard
> Cc:; Robert Freeman; oracle list
> Subject: Re: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux
> Hi Dick,
> First of all let me say that none of what follows is intended as a
> slight on either the decision you describe below which is perfectly
> fair and reasonable, nor the skills and competence of your wider
> team about which I know nothing. I'm really just using your post as
> a jumping off point to remake some of my argument in the new Oak
> Table press book and to comment on more general practice in the
> industry.
> The points you make (apart from the "blue screen of death") apply to
> 32bit Oracle on Windows. Strictly of course they also apply to
> 64bit Oracle on 64bit windows and when 8Tb of memory becomes a
> limiting factor for our databases then the same problems will apply
> there as well, this day is a way off - I'm hoping past my retirement
> but I doubt it, I expect to be seeing 128bit computing (and 64bit
> shops busy windowing into a 128bit address space in a mad attempt to
> avoid just using the right hardware and software in the first place
> then). 32bit windows is limited by the architecture to a relatively
> few number of concurrent sessions ( low hundreds typically) and to
> relatively low memory requirements as you describe -- and because
> each new connection uses 1mb of memory by default whether it's doing
> anything or not these two restrictions have become rather limiting
> <rant> especially as web developers can't close connections reliable
> when not needed</rant>.
> The proper solution here is not necessarily to jump ship to *nix,
> though that might be a perfectly reasonable decision for other
> reasons, but simply to move to 64bit computing of whatever flavour.
> After all it's extremely likely that your server and os have been
> running on 64bit hardware for some years now. What I do see often
> that really annoys me, though again I'm not suggesting this is your
> specific suggestion, is that *nix 64bit - especially Linux x86-64 -
> is superior to win32 because of the process and memory limits of the
> latter. Well doh! It is true that in a limited environment because
> of the process vs thread architecture Linux x86 is superior to win32
> but then I'd be amazed if people were installing 32bit Linux either
> for much of the same reasons. It really isn't the 90s any more.
> If you really mean that you have an actual blue screen of death that
> frequently, it really ought to be resolvable and certainly shouldn't
> have anything to do with Oracle itself since this is caused
> (primarily) by kernel address space bugs in drivers or other kernel
> mode software (so I guess crs could cause a BSOD). Your expectation
> should be that a BSOD should never be seen on a server running
> windows 2003 or later and rarely on windows 2000 and that any such
> occurrence should result in a support ticket with either or both of
> the hardware vendor and/or microsoft themselves.
> Robert's original question was about RAC. I'd go back here to the
> comments in the other thread about RAC beng more complex and prone
> to human error than vanilla Oracle, and add that because of the
> clusterware and internetworking requirements it presents much more
> of an o/s management challenge than a vanilla o/s install, for that
> reason primarily I'd agree with the other posters who have commented
> upon where the skills of the system administration staff lie.
> Windows RAC in the hands of a Solaris SA is likely to be a disaster
> as is the reverse case.
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Goulet, Richard <
> > wrote:
> Rafiq,
> As I'm working in one of the premier (top 10) trials companies
> to the pharma community we are moving all our databases/applications
> off of Windows for Unix based operating systems. These are
> validated, no problem. Windows has two basic problems, memory and
> processes. Without a start up switch your limited to 3GB total
> memory for Oracle, with the switch you can have another gb, but it
> uses memory context switches which are a performance killer. The
> second is that Oracle on Windows is multithreaded within a single
> executable where as Unix based systems have multiple processes again
> limiting capacity. Our windows based databases are a real pain in
> the shorts, they are constantly hitting that "blue screen of death"
> at least once a week. As it is after 1 June we will no longer
> support or validate a Windows database.
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA/NA Team Lead
> PAREXEL International
> From: [mailto:oracle-l-
>] On Behalf Of Mohammad Rafiq
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:50 PM
> To: Robert Freeman; oracle list
> Subject: RE: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux
> Robert,
> I don't agree that Window is evil. I seen problems with Windows NT
> (mostly memory leak related) but after handling Oracle databases on
> Windows 2000 or newer version, it is quite stable. However it
> depends on SA of Windows server how competent they are to configure
> and handle Windows server.
> I am mostly supporting Oracle databases of various versions on HP,
> RedHat Linux and Windows and did not find serious issues with
> Windows 2000+ servers. Although it is not a preferred environment
> but due vendor requirements for their application (specially for
> pharmceutical industry which needs validated application/databases)
> we need to put Oracle databases on Windows 2000/2003 servers.
> Regards
> Rafiq
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:05:10 -0800
> From:
> Subject: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux
> To:
> Anyone want to jump in on their preferred platform for RAC?
> Personally I tend to lean towards Linux for stability purposes, but
> I'd like your thoughts on why you prefer either platform for RAC.
> Specifically why would you avoid windows (other than the fact that
> it's evil), or would you?
> RF
> Robert G. Freeman
> Master Principle Consultant, Oracle Corporation
> Oracle ACE
> Author:
> Oracle Database 11g RMAN Backup and Recovery (Oracle Press) - ON ITS
> OCP: Oracle Database 11g Administrator Certified Professional Study
> Guide (Sybex)
> Oracle Database 11g New Features (Oracle Press)
> Oracle Database 10g New Features (Oracle Press)
> Other various titles
> Blog:
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
> --
> Niall Litchfield
> Oracle DBA

Received on Tue Feb 23 2010 - 09:30:43 CST

Original text of this message