Re: How to deploy a 24hrs , 7 days a week kind of database environment?

Well I guess we differ on what's funny.

I'm working "as a consultant" on a multi-million dollar project to place a 24x7 NT solution in 3 of NY's major airports.

I apologize, but I get a little irritated when I run across a post that offers no content, and only snide comments. I've implemented systems on VMS, UNIX and NT and have found the major difference to be that NT systems are greatly abused.

Unfortunately, they are very easy to install and many software packages run on them. Clients try to get by on weak machines, install every app in the world on them and neglect hiring a professional to maintain them. This obviously leads to problems. But if you only install the OS, a database and a server application on a well tuned, sufficently sized machine, you have about as many problems as a VAX or UNIX box. I will have to agree that UNIX has NT beat hands down when you want to scale over 8+ cpus.

To the original poster: the following site offers some concrete facts about NT vs. UNIX that are much more informative than Martin's. Be aware though, this sites main focus is "Why Unix is much better than NT." Keep an open mind while viewing.

           http://www.unix-vs-nt.org

All I ask is that we speak from a standpoint of knowledge and experience to help others like the original poster make an informed decision, not one based on ignorance. I doubt the orignal poster took their time to ask this question hoping for a few sarcastic remarks.

-Frank

In article <71o0c3$g3f$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,   satar_at_my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Hey Frank, I believe Martin was being Sarcastic (but not too far off the
> truth). Actually, I got a kick out of his post. Actually, as a consultant, I
> would never put a 24x7 database, which can't afford down time, on an NT
> system. Even Microsoft's web servers are on UNIX boxes. It is a known fact
> that NT boxes have to be "bounced" more times than a Unix server. As far as
> "Big Databases" on an NT platform, will I have to know what is your
> definition of "big". Also, I have heard no negative experiences of running a
> "big" database on an NT box, so I can't comment on that.
>
> Anyway Frank...A little humor is not bad, just because we work with computers
> doesn't mean we are one. ;)
>
> Satar
>
> In article <71ni6i$r7v$1_at_nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> nasof_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >Can Oracle running on NT server have this type of reliability?
> > >
> > > Oracle can, but I'd be surprised if you can run a big system on NT for
more
> > > than 24 minutes without it falling over. Unix bigots of the world
unite.....
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Martin
> > >
> >
> > That's funny, because I have implemented 24x7 failover systems for both Unix
> > and NT and have more luck (and uptime) with NT. Do you speak from a
> > standpoint of experience or simple ignorance?
> >
> > This is a professional forum where adults discuss serious technology issues.
> > If you have something positive to contribute please do, otherwise keep your
> > predudices and childish attitude to yourself.
> >
> > -Frank
> >
> > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
> >
>
> --
> Oracle DBA/UNIX System Admin
> Advanced Enterprise Solutions
> (949) 756-0588
> Oracle Re-Seller
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own Received on Tue Nov 03 1998 - 18:32:42 CST