Re: Minimalist ORACLE Installation

From: Hans Forbrich <forbrich_at_yahoo.net>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 19:27:44 GMT
Message-ID: <QQNrc.12444$SQ2.4613@edtnps89>

Sarah Tanembaum wrote:

>
> "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:51yrc.6185$SQ2.1489_at_edtnps89...

>> Sarah Tanembaum wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Some of my colleaque to look into the opensource database such as MySQL
>> > and/or PostgreSQL since they are easy to install and require virtually
>> > very little resources as compare to MS SQL*Server, Sybase, DB2, and
>> > especially Oracle. Is it true?
>> >
>> > The reason is that I have a limited diskspace and memory.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>>
>> The smallest 'supported' footprint for Oracle that meets your criteria is
>> Oracle Standard Edition (or Standard Edition ONE if your machine only
>> supports 1 or 2 CPU).
>>
>> You can theoretically create a custom install smaller than that, but you
>> have to know exactly what you are doing. (And it probably won't be
>> supported.)
>>
>> The Standard Edition {ONE] has most, if not all, of the features that
>> typical PostgreSQL, MySQL, MS Access and SQL Server shops are looking
>> for. (This is NOT a challenge for a feature battle - just a stanement of
>> what the developers think they want, in my experience.)

>
> I think, most small, medium, and large corporation can do away with the
> above.

Wrong. Many small and some medium companies can.

Howeer, you ignore the capabilities and purpose of the Enterprise Edition and the relevance thereof to large companies.

> Just as computer hardware, most user buy the most expensive one to get the
> most features but they are using it just for wordprocessing, reading
> email, and
> play games. Many, if not, most medium-big size corporation wasting their
> resources for something that they do not actually needs it.
>

>>
>> There are dozens of reasons why MySQL and PostgreSQL have a smaller
>> footprint.  As of yet, the commercial products still have an edge in
>> reliability, scalability, and other capabilities.

>
> But how much more reliability, scalability, and other features they have
> as compared to PostgreSQL for good size shop or MySQL for small shop?
> For sometimes I was led to believe that more expensive is better, and was
> proven wrong.
>

All I can say - ignorance is bliss.

You, unfortunately, do not know what you are talking about when making such a statement. However, unless you read the Oracle Concepts manual, your belief will likely stay unchanged.

Therefore, if you want to continue this discussion with me, I recommend you read the indicated document.

>>
>> Oracle, for example, provides intrinsic support for several additional
>> datatypes AND their manipulation.  While PostgreSQL and MySQL support
>> many
>> of the datatypes, the manipulation is in some areas still a ways off.  As

> a

>> result, you end up growing the effective footprint by needing to add
>> extra software.

>
> But the beauty of opensource, it will not cost you anything to acquire an
> additional
> software. On example is Apache! It is one of the best, perhaps the best
> Web Apps
> Server around. It has many hooks too many things in which many commercial
> web server does not have. Apache becoming the pioner in many areas where
> other
> commercial tend to follow.
>

But YOU must spend the time making sure it works.

I would rather use Apache supplied by Oracle, knowing that it works with Oracle. Others (read the archives) prefer to waste their time making their specific version work with the database.

>>
>> The kicker is that the additional things are preintegrated and tested
>> with the database, whereas many OpenSource developers end up adding or
>> integrating the capability manually.  Some examnples, in Oracle's case:
>> Apache-based HTTP listener, PERL, direct interface from Apache to
>> database via mod_PLSQL, Java and J2EE, a command line interface to the
>> data,

> message

>> & message queueing, email inteface, direct HTML capability, workflow, a
>> text/document index and search mechanism, geospatial manipulation, XML as

> a

>> data type that can be joined with tables.

>
> I think there are 2 camp of design method you mention above: modular and
> all-in-one.
> As most big software house, they tend to be so bloated and a bit rigid,
> where the open
> source tend to be modular, not by design, but by its nature where it is
> very collaborative
> development.
>
> There are good and bad being bloated and modulars. One is interopability
> amongst
> modules, but at the same token, maintainability has perhaps inverse
> relationship.
> I think it is easier to maintain a modular approach than all-in-one
> approach. That
> said, it will also affect the cost of development.
>
> Modularity will create more competition which is good for consumer where
> they can
> easily pick and choose what they need the most, in which otherwise with
> the bloated
> apps, they pretty much stuck with what they have in that one apps. Also,
> with modular
> approach, they can purchase what they need not and add another later, but
> you can
> do that with the big apps.
>

No argument. It depends on what you want to accomplish. As I said, know your tools.

>>
>> (Similar statements can be made for the other products.)
>>
>> The counter argument is generally "I want to pick the version levels of

> the

>> add-ons".  Which is fine if you want to spend the time and effort
>> supporting the required combination.
>>
>> (One other _major_ difference is that Oracle uses a SCHEMA in a manner
>> similar to other products' DATABASE.  Many developers get this confused

> and

>> create many Oracle Databases when they really should have one database

> that

>> contains many schemas.  That frequently results in a footprint that is

> MUCH

>> larger than necessary.)
>>
>> Don't get me wrong - I do like and use Open Source.  I just believe in
>> picking the right tool for the job, and understand WHY it's the right

> tool.

>> Many developers snub Oracle simply because they do not know what it is
>> capable of doing.  Thus they end up reinventing the wheel - which may
>> keep the initial cost low but tends to increase the long term operating
>> cost.

>
> Opensource does cut cost substantially if you know what you are looking
> for. Perhaps the benefit of commercial software are good for those who do
> not know
> for sure exactly what they are looking for. It is easier to pick the most
> features and
> figure out later what feature are needed, isn't it?
>

As I said, I believe in Open Source. However, I do know that used incorrectly, it does increase the cost. And I also know that using Oracle, not as a plain data source, but as an application environment, generally results in a reduced cost over any other combination of

You MUST understand what you are doing and what you are using. Otherwise you are simply another religious fanatic in a world filled with too many fanatics.

(However, I see that your intention is probably to troll this group, so further discussion is useless. Goodbye.)

/Hans Received on Sat May 22 2004 - 14:27:44 CDT