Re: Are most DBA jobs on UNIX or Mainframe, not NT?

On 25 May 1999 22:52:23 GMT, sweh_at_mpn.com (Stephen Harris) wrote:

>and HP is DB/Finance). But bash _is_ deficient when compared to ksh
>IMHO :-)

I'll check it out!

>For experimentation and learning of Oracle, Oracle on Linux i386 is pretty
>good. And Linux PC's are cheap! But I wouldn't trust Linux with my
>financials data, despite liking it very very much.
Rather Linux than NT ;-) but yes, I wouldn't trust it with that kind of data, yet. It's more a fact of the applications to mature, all RDBMSs are still in their first release and no one has an actual data of how it will restore after 2 years in production, 100 gig's worth of transaction logs, and the drives go up in flames. I do trust the OS itself, but also there is still a lot of change going on, not the backward compatibility you excpect for the commercial alternatives, especialy when it comes to glibc. The fact that Sybase runs smoothly on a glibc2.1 machine makes me thing they simply linked it staticly. It's good to be a Linux fan, but you have to stay realistic. But in the end, what this discussion started about: It's a hell of a way to learn Unix.

>Once you spec a PC to the stability
>requirements of a HP K class or a E3000 (mirroring, redundance CPUs etc)
>the machines get expensive.

And in the end it'll never get as reliable, harware speaking.

Cheers,

Bas. Received on Wed May 26 1999 - 13:34:02 CDT