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: native Oracle-port on Linux -- what would it take?

Re: native Oracle-port on Linux -- what would it take?

From: Joel Garry <joelga_at_pebble.ml.org>
Date: 1997/12/19
Message-ID: <67f0fn$kko$1@pebble.ml.org>

In article <m267omwptk.fsf_at_lucifer.guardian.no>, Bjorn Borud <borud_at_guardian.no> wrote:
>["S V" <sv1_at_mindspring.com>]
>
>keep in mind that those who would want to run Oracle on Linux usually
>have pretty modest database needs, thus much of what you're asking for
>isn't really an issue at all. if you need a large SMP system or
>terabytes of tablespaces you would probably buy something else than a
>PC -- don't you agree?
>
>| Linux is missing many features for any OS to be worth considering
>| as a viable database platform.
>| 1. Linux has no logical volumes layer.
>
>what's the problem? I have worked on ONE site where they used logical
>volumes, but they would have done just as well without. this is a non
>issue.

Not a non-issue for places that use raw file-systems. But I agree, they are not _necessary_.

>
>| 2. Linux has no transaction-oriented filesystem.
>
>would you like to explain why you think this is an issue at all?
>because I really can't see any reason why you would need one. sure,
>the extra redundancy at the file system level is probably a cool
>feature, but this has nothing to do with the database.
>
>| 3. Linux has no support for raw devices - hence NO even remote possibility
>| to run Oracle Parallel Server.
>
>I have yet to desire raw devices for using Oracle and I certainly have
>never needed to run Oracle Parallel server. if I would ever need to
>run it I would certainly not do it on a PC.

With the top-end MP PC's, PC is a misnomer. I don't think parallel servers are a bad topic for this at all. Too bad the original post was such a troll.

>
>| 4. Linux networking is flaky at best.
>
>uh, compared to what? would you mind explaining to me how you got
>that impression, because we're obviously from different worlds. in my
>world Linux holds up pretty good compared to other OSes running on PCs
>and more traditional UNIX servers as well.
>
>| 5. Linux OS block size is what? 512 bytes? It would make even MS
>| Access laugh and puke steam.
>
>uh, what block size would that be? if you're talking about the file
>system one can only guess whatever gave you that idea. on my system
>the block size on a ext2 filesystem can be between 1024 and 4096.
>
>would you care to explain what block size you are referring to and
>what block sizes other systems where Oracle is available use?
>
>| 6. Linux SMP is rudimentary and flaky at best.
>
>that might be true, but still, they ported Oracle to NT and last time
>I checked Linux scaled better across 2 CPUs than NT.
>
>would you care to explain?
>
>| 7. The same for multithreading.
>
>from what I understand Linux multithreading is different from for
>example Solaris. I'm told (by people who are intimately familiar
>with the Linux kernel) that Linux does multithreading faster than for
>example Solaris.
>
>it's there, it's fast -- now, would you care to explain exactly why
>you think that Linux has "rudimentary and flaky at best"
>multithreading?
>
>| In fact porting Oracle to Linux would require Oracle to write its
>| own Linux almost from scratch.
>
>you are most absolutely wrong.
>
>| ==> I don't see much (or rather _any) prospects for seeing Oracle on
>| Linux.
>
>perhaps it's time for you to take a closer look at Linux as well as
>other systems that Oracle has been ported to before you jump to any
>conclusions about the suitability of Linux as a platform for running
>Oracle. Oracle has been ported to operating systems that are _far_
>less advanced than Linux and that lack almost everything that you
>mentioned in your post. that hasn't stopped Oracle from porting to
>them so far, so you will have to think of something better.

Jeez, I had to support it on MPE/ix! Fortunately, not for any actual customers.

>
>the fact that Oracle already can be run on Linux using iBCS2 (this has
>been possible since at least version 1.2 of the Linux kernel) should
>prove that Oracle can in fact run under Linux without, as you state,
>Oracle Corp. having to rewrite Linux from scratch.
>
>(Some time ago I read that someone had benchmarked Oracle on a PC using
> both SCO UNIX and Linux with some very interesting results. does
> anyone remember who did this?)
>
>
>porting Oracle to Linux is certainly not a technical issue, it is a
>political and economical one. if the CEO of Oracle is as dedicated to
>the cause of fighting Microsofts operating system monopoly as he would
>like us to think he is it puts him in a strange light when he doesn't
>pay attention to those who use one of the more viable alternatives
>to NT turn to Oracle for support.

Yeah, that business plan youse guys were talking about - try packaging linux servers with a few million of NC's. That oughta get Larry's attention.

>
>
>-Bjørn

-- 
These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
jgarry@eiq.com                           http://www.informationquest.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/joel_garry
"See your DBA?"  I AM the @#%*& DBA!
Received on Fri Dec 19 1997 - 00:00:00 CST

Original text of this message

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