Re: Oracle on unix or NT

I had a project migrating an OTL (online transaction system) application from os2 TO WINDOWS nt4.0
at ricoh espc in amsterdam holland. NT40 clogged up when about 30 people where
accessing the database concurrently. (adding an extra processor, raid10 controller,
and 256meg (yes!) of memory to the machine didn't help at all. Not even a slight
improvement. (I learned the hard way that NT40 isn't scalable.) After close examination it seems that NT40 stops when to many processes (28 to be exactly) are waiting for blocking IO. The kernel doesn't get any processor time at all,
(flat-line on the task manager monitor)!!

/Jacob

David Sisk <davesisk_at_ipass.net> schreef in artikel <4c0e2.1048$kx1.1678_at_news.ipass.net>...
> Ooops, let me qualify one statement:
>
> Concerning Oracle/Linux/Intel, you'll probably get the same or better
> performance and reliability as Oracle/NT on the same hardware, and
probably
> about the same performance and reliability as Oracle/Solaris/Intel, but
> lower cost in both cases.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> David C. Sisk
> The Unofficial ORACLE on NT site
> http://www.ipass.net/~davesisk/oont.htm
>
>
> David Sisk wrote in message ...
> >Hi:
> >
> >Take a look at the web-site below. There's a decent comparison between
> >Oracle on NT vs. Oracle on UNIX. Things to consider:
> >
> >1) Say bye-bye to easy remote management via a command line. Not every
> >point-n-click has a command-line equivalent.
> >2) Scripting for NT is getting better, but still has a ways to go.
> >3) Anyway you slice it, NT was originally (as Windows 3.1) designed to
be
> >single-user, where unix was not. There's still some limitations to
> >overcome....
> >4) Anyway you slice it, Oracle for NT was designed to support small to
> >medium sized applications, while Oracle on Unix was designed to support
the
> >medium to big stuff.
> >
> >I would agree with the earlier post about considering Oracle/Linux/Intel
as
> >a possible alternative. If cost and/or price-performance ratio are your
> >motivations for considering NT as a replacement for Solaris, then Linux
> will
> >beat both of them in the cost category, and in reality you'll probably
get
> >as good or better performance and reliability. (Note that not
everything
> is
> >available on Linux yet, but Oracle appears to be firmly commited to that
> >goal.)
> >
> >Good luck,
> >
> >--
> >David C. Sisk
> >The Unofficial ORACLE on NT site
> >http://www.ipass.net/~davesisk/oont.htm
> >
> >
> >Ed Lufker wrote in message <756t4f$dl1$1_at_sloth.swcp.com>...
> >>Hi All:
> >>
> >>
> >> I am trying not to put my Oracle db on an NT platform, it is
> >>currently on a solaris platform. Could you help and give the reasons
why I
> >>shouldn't move the database over to an NT platform. Big picture stuff
> >>would be great. I only know unix, so I dont have clue what Oracle acts
> >>like on an NT box.
> >>
> >>
> >>thanks in advance for any help here
> >>eddie lufker
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 19 1998 - 15:22:45 CST