Re: Unix versus NT

ALAIN COLOMB wrote in message <35227456.1594_at_BULL.NET>... <some stuff snipped>
>Ok, I know Oracle 7.3 on NT4, I know more about Oracle 7.3 on Unix,
>but I would know if there is some tools or papers to guide me.
>Take a 'normal' DB :

Never met a 'normal' DB myself - except maybe for the demo db that's included with Oracle distribution... ;-)

>I would know if one is more secure (and with which product:Cheyenn...),

Depends on how you harden them. Neither is secure out-of-the-box. Unix security experts will say it's easier to harden Unix than NT, and that more security issues are addressed by Unix than NT. NT experts will differ.

But this issue is IMO -not- the criteria that should be used in deciding a database server platform. If you were however talking about a firewall platform then it is a different ballgame with different requirements.

>if one is more fast (compared with the same disks),

Depends on the CPU, motherboard, hardware architecure, etc. etc. I don't performance to be solely the "responsibility" or "cause" of the operating system.

I personally think that Unix should run on RISC and not Intel. Thus comparing a RISC box with an Intel box is not always comparing apples with apples. Once again I don't think that speed (i.e. CPU clock speed) is an important criteria when deciding on a db server platform. CPUs increases (doubles?) in performance every 16 or something months. When looking at the hardware, you should like at scalability, upgradeability, vendor support, cost etc. etc.

Of course, Unix and NT can run on the exact same platforms. Which is the fastest? Depends on how you tune them and what you're trying to do. I have heard many contradictions when it comes to raw speed on the same platform when it comes to comparing NT and Unix. The fact is that both operating systems is only as fast as the hardware you run them on, the way you tune them, and the software you run on them. Thus when considering performance you have to look at the total picture, and not only at one component in isolation.

>if it's easy to see and log activity on NT during transaction
>(like sar/ps ... on Unix),

NT has a very good performance monitoring tool that ships as part of the operating system. But like Unix, you need to know the operating system and its behaviour to correctly interpret performance statistics. The biggest difference is that on Unix Oracle forks child processes as seperate Unix processes. On NT, Oracle spawns child threads. but these threads are not a "seperate process" like under Unix.

>if one is more easy to administrate when one develops on the same
>host the product runs.

NT administration (due to the GUI admin tools) is easy to use. Problem though is that NT's scripting language (DOS) sucks and can not even be compared with Unix. So automating admin via scripting on NT is hell. But "adhoc" admin on NT is quite likely faster and easier because of the GUI admin tools.

But there's solutions to both. You get command shells with advance Unix-like scripting for NT. And you get X/Motif admin tools for Unix which is just as "nice and easy" than their NT counterparts.

Once again, I will not consider this a prime criteria for deciding on which operating system platform to use. :-)

IMO there is no standard list that can be ticked resulting in the magic answer on whether to use NT or Unix. Each site/customer/department is different. You need to look at long term strategies. Cost. Budgets. Support contracts. Inhouse administration. DBA and development skills. Training requirements. Make sure that the technology fits the business requirements. Etc. Etc.

Anyone (so-called independant consultants and experts especially) that tells you that a certain product (hardware, software or operating system) is the -best- for your business, without asking these questions should be dealt with a lead pipe.

regards,
Billy Received on Thu Apr 02 1998 - 00:00:00 CST