| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: native Oracle-port on Linux -- what would it take?
In article <01bd0b13$3da5c480$2e5c0c26_at_sfinance3>,
"S V" <sv1_at_mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
> Bjorn Borud <borud_at_guardian.no> wrote in article
> <m2wwh3x5bs.fsf_-__at_lucifer.guardian.no>...
>> >> | <sigh> isn't this covered in the Linux FAQ? IF you can get hold of >> | certain SCO binaries you can install Oracle just fine. I have done iton
>> | Red Hat and even on Slackware, both with the iBCS package installed of >> | course. >> >> strange really; it has become a FAQ how to install SCO binaries on >> Linux and quite a few sources say that most large companies or >> companies that have anything to do with the Internet, use Linux -- yet >> Oracle are unable to deliver a Linux version of their database.
I don't know about Oracle, but I *do* know about sybase. So I'm going to answer from that perspective, since Serge is suggesting that linux isn't suitable for *any* db vendor to consider porting to.
> 1. Linux has no logical volumes layer.
Why is this required? I use sybase on multiple platforms. Some have logical volume *capability* some do not. It is __NOT REQUIRED__ for a RDBMS to use the OSes logical volumes. Strike 1.
> 2. Linux has no transaction-oriented filesystem.
RDBMSes do not require a transaction-oriented filesystem...even when the data is _STORED_ on the filesystem. In fact, if the data is stored on a transaction-oriented filesystem, it often slows the RDBMS down. Strike 2.
> 3. Linux has no support for raw devices - hence NO even remote possibility
> to run Oracle Parallel Server.
Most RDBMSes that I've seen allow filesystem devices. In addition, while not _RAW_ devices, per se, the /dev/?da? devices are virtually equivalent in functionality...with the exception that the linux devices have buffering and proper raw devices do not. All this means is that your data is not guaranteed to make it to the disk when the RDBMS thinks it is. Not a problem for most users, and those who require this probably wouldn't be running linux anyway. Strike 3.
> 4. Linux networking is flaky at best.
That's odd. On Suns, its actually faster than Sun's own OS. You really don't know what you're talking about. In any case, networking speed is not a critical factor for RDBMS performance. Strike 4.
> 5. Linux OS block size is what? 512 bytes? It would make even MS Access
> laugh and puke steam.
Block size is dependant on the device in question. You have proved yourself a troll. Come to think of it, I've seen you troll before. Strike 5.
> 6. Linux SMP is rudimentary and flaky at best.
While this is _partially true_ (Linux SMP IS rudimentary...in 2.0), it is by no means flaky. How many people run RDBMSes on an SMP box anyway?
> 7. The same for multithreading.
You should really KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE YOU WRITE. Of course, as a troll, you probably don't care that Linux multithreading is just fine.
> 8. Oracle requires efficient IPC and record-locking mechanisms. Linux
> cannot do
> record-locking at all, last time I checked. So Oracle would have to
> write its own
> code for that. Why would anyone sane want that?
IPC under linux is quite efficient. Record locking happens within the RDBMS _REGARDLESS OF PLATFORM_. Do you have any clue what you are typing, or are you so pro NT (I've seen you troll before), that you must try to make all other OSes look bad?
>
> In fact porting Oracle to Linux would require Oracle to write its own Linux
> almost
> from scratch.
>
> ==> I don't see much (or rather _any) prospects for seeing Oracle on
> Linux.
>
> Cordially,
> Serge
It must hurt to be that desperate for attention that you have to troll.
Brian Received on Thu Dec 18 1997 - 00:00:00 CST
 |
 |