Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.misc -> Re: Best Oracle Platform??

Re: Best Oracle Platform??

From: BarryAZ <barryaz_at_aol.com>
Date: 1997/01/16
Message-ID: <19970116123701.HAA17740@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/1

Hi, my name is Barry Schader. I'm in the process of building a very small 'data warehouse' (3GB, but growing) using Oracle on an Alpha workstation (233MHz) running NT 3.51, which is very quickly running out of steam. I didn't expect to run into CPU limitations this soon! And struggling without a decent batch control language is terrible (going to try Hamilton C Shell).

This thread is very interesting -- thanks for all of the input!

Everything I've read here and elsewhere points in the direction of UNIX. And it sounds like an Intel box is going to be pretty limiting for me later on. However, I have these problems:

  1. Cost of hardware. Compaq Intel box w/2 PPro 200, 256MB memory, UltraSCSI, 3x9GB disks is around $25,000. AlphaServer 4100 with single 400MHz CPU, 512MB, F/W SCSI, one 4GB disk is around $60,000 (but admittedly offers much room for growth). Our Alpha salesman says that he's seen their I/O subsystem run 9 times faster than an Ultra-SCSI based system on an Intel SMP box. (?!)
  2. Cost of Oracle. NT/Intel is the 'Workgroup' level server, which is ONE FIFTH the cost per user (and 2.5 times cheaper on annual support -- thanks Microsoft SQL-Server!), about $300 per user, vs. $1500 for the 'Enterprise' level. Although NT on a single CPU Alpha is also 'Workgroup', they stick you in the 'Enterprise' as soon as you stick in the second CPU -- OUCH. Unix is 'Enterprise' level on any platform. According to Oracle, 'Workgroup' is the same engine as 'Enterprise', minus some options like Parrallel Query (admittedly could be very handy in my case).
  3. Lack of UNIX expertise. We are a VMS shop, but starting to pull away from VMS (although we dearly love the OS). A few years down the line, we'd like to be on one or at most two OS's, if at all possible. Compared to VMS, UNIX and NT both seem a bit weak. NT seems to have a more 'advanced' foundation to build on (we like the VMS heritage). Our one guy who has attempted to support an HP/UX system has been disappointed, to put it mildly.
  4. We're starting to use Intel/NT for other purposes, such as Intranet Web serving and an off-the-shelf app based on MS SQL-Server. And we use Compaq Proliants already as our Netware servers.
  5. There's a pretty strong MS bias in the company. Almost all of our productivity software is MS.

I'm leaning strongly toward the Compaq box, but I'm worried about running into the 'ceiling' on performance. At only $25,000, I suspect I can afford to make that mistake ... once.

Any opinions on the validity of the points that I mentioned, or on the choice that I'm making, would be GREATLY appreciated!

Thanks,
Barry Schader Received on Thu Jan 16 1997 - 00:00:00 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US