Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle on Novell

Re: Oracle on Novell

From: Dan Norris <dann_at_sky.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 16:00:42 GMT
Message-ID: <6m3gf8$eut$1@sky.net>


I'd have to agree that NT is a better choice than netware, but only because support would be better. I'd have to say that I believe that Novell is a better application server than NT. After all, to me, it seems that Novell was originally built as an application SERVER. NT doesn't make me think of an application server. It seems to me that NT was originally intended for end-user desktop use and than put in to the "SERVER" category. Any "SERVER" where you must be at the console to perform some tasks is not a SERVER.

<RANT>
To me, a SERVER is a system that could be locked in a closet and no one even knows where it is. NT "SERVERs" typically are used from the console more thhan 50% of the time because they must be used from the console. Oracle is one application that, when deployed on NT, must be started and stopped from the console as I don't know any way to start NT services from a remote location. Maybe it's just my ignorance, but UNIX is also my first choice. In my opinion, you won't find a faster UNIX platform than DEC Alphas. As for your support issues, well, maybe you should keep trying rather than getting sour after one or two bad experiences. I have had some pretty unhelpful people trying to advise me on how to fix my NT or netware boxen as well.
</RANT>

Dan

Michael Krolewski <vandra_at_u.washington.edu> writes:

>Just to throw in my 2 cents. I am aware of no application that runs better in
>Novel than under NT. NT is an application server, Oracle is a multi process
>multithread application. Novel is built to act as a storage engine and
>possibly run Novel OS applications. Oracle is not a Novel OS application.

>No I do not want to get flamed.

>I believe that NT would be a better bet. Bigger and more support from
>many vendors and Oracle itself.

>If you are looking for performance look at the hardware -- disk caches,
>bus speed, hub speed. Generally even with large databases for an NT
>box the issue of performance is on the hardware. HP has multiple processer
>servers with good internal drive support ie LX server.

>Moving from DEC to an NT box you are going to see a performance drop.

>Mike Krolewski

>Roger Loeb wrote:

>> Dan,
>>
>> Thanks for you input. I really appreciate it. I agree that the application
>> is getting rather large for the Wintel platform. However, it is currently
>> running on a DEC Alpha under Unix, and DEC support has been nothing short of
>> abominable. We were down for 5 days before the problem got escalated high
>> enough for someone to finally say, "Oh, you need the secret patch for that."
>> Compaq and DEC deserve each other; they both have a fondness for keeping
>> vital information "close to the vest."
>>
>> What I am trying to do is put the Oracle stuff on a platform that we
>> (mostly) understand, have lots of support (from newsgroups and other
>> pioneers), have plenty of choices for hardware variants, and the hardware
>> price is kept down by competition. Thus, ... the Intel x86+ platform, which
>> may not be adequate for the task. I have the disk facilities and speed --
>> the same ones I would use on Unix (from Winchester Systems www.winsys.com --
>> really fast RAID-5 arrays). What I need is something to run Oracle as a
>> server. The applications will remain on the Alpha. (That's the only reason
>> I can even consider WinNT, which is too unstable if you actually run any
>> applications other than something rock solid like Oracle.) The data divides
>> itself nicely into two independent databases, so I can use a two machine
>> cluster to spread the load and get failover support.
>>
>> I think I'm committed to at least trying this approach. Doesn't cost a
>> bunch to test it. However, if I can really get 30% better performance on
>> Netware, where I also have better support for very large data files, I need
>> to take a serious look at that possibility.
>>
>> I'm one of those people who still believe in Novell. Once more people
>> recognize that there's a big difference in "industrial strength" networks,
>> and that application servers and network servers don't have to be the same
>> thing, the basic Novell architecture, particularly as it has been
>> re-invented in Netware 5, is likely to enjoy a resurgence. Too many of our
>> clients have jumped on the NT bandwagon and regretted it severely. Novell
>> has shipped some pretty strong products lately, has acquired some serious
>> Java talent, and has a good story to tell if they can get above the noise
>> level. (My Netware 3.11 server says it's been running for 895 days; I
>> remember taking it down to add some memory almost three years ago. My NT
>> server was last rebooted yesterday, and looks like it may need to be
>> rebooted any minute...)
>>
>> Rog
Received on Mon Jun 15 1998 - 11:00:42 CDT

Original text of this message

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