Re: Oracle on NT versus UNIX???

From: Glen Upreti <glen.upreti_at_nau.edu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:16:11 -0700
Message-ID: <369E6CAB.63277CD8@nau.edu>

After working on Oracle v's73x and 80x on unix (aix and solaris) and a bit of exposure to NT, I must say that I like Unix better, I feel that I have more control of the database and it seems more transparent. Maybe it is the geek in me or maybe it is just that I don't know enough about NT, but I feel very strongly that UNIX is the way to go. Have fun deciding,
Glen

Tom McCann wrote:
>
> One of the key questions you have to ask yourself is what your real demand is.
> You say that you run at 100% for long periods of time. That means you have some
> level of latent demand, but it's difficult to figure out how much. You are going
> to have to come up with some kind of capacity requirement per user before you
> can really get a handle on this. But, assuming you can do that, and assuming
> also that a 4-way Intel machine will handle your total workload, then your
> considerations include the following:
>
> 1. Oracle will probably achieve more available hours per week on Unix than on
> NT. That's because NT seems to (still) be plagued by memory leaks and other
> idiosyncracies that mean you should re-boot it every day. This may or may not be
> a problem for you.
>
> 2. You will likely have more I/O flexibility on a Unix machine than an Intel
> machine. Once again, this may not really mean much to you, because there's
> plenty of good I/O available in the Intel space. But, if you anticipate rapid
> growth in users or dataspace requirements, you might want to consider the
> additional flexibility.
>
> 3. Unix is harder to use and administer. I like it better myself, but not
> because it's easy to use.
>
> 4. Unix systems can get much larger than NT systems today, and in the forseeable
> future. In terms of database servers, there is probably a 3 -> 10 X difference
> between the largest feasible NT database and the largest feasible Unix database.
> The key term here is 'feasible', which is somewhat different than vendor claims.
>
> In summary, if you think you're going to get a LOT bigger, look hard at Unix. If
> not, then you can probably stick with NT.
>
> John Martin Kvalsund wrote:
>
> > I have an appliction (IFS applications, any experience with that??) running
> > on Oracle 7.3.3 on NT server 4.0 SP3. The hardware is a Compaq Proliant
> > 2500 containing 2 CPU's (Pentium Pro 200) and 1 GB of RAM. With approx. 30
> > users of the application this server meets the limit. All available memory
> > is consumed by Oracle and the CPU usage hits 100 % in long periods, (end of
> > months etc.). I have two choices:
> >
> > 1: By a new 4 processor NT box.
> >
> > 2: By a suitable Unix box (i.e. Sun Enterprise server 450) and convert the
> > Oracle database.
> >
> > I've heard that Unix systems are more "CPU-efficient, more efficient code"
> > etc. The ordinary Unix-excuses for being much more expensive... But how big
> > is the difference? Is Oracle that much better on Unix than NT, or could a
> > more powerful NT-box manage the same performance as a Unix-box?
> >
> > Appreciate any advice on this matter, has anyone done a NT-to-Unix
> > convertion, what was the result, the costs etc.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > John Martin

--
<html>
|-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-| Glen
Upreti<x-tab>     </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab>     
Oracle
DBA<x-tab>      </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab><x-tab>        </x-tab>                     
Northern Arizona University 
Phone: (520)523-8393 
<x-tab>  </x-tab>Fax:(520)523-7407 Glen.Upreti_at_nau.edu 
</html> Received on Thu Jan 14 1999 - 16:16:11 CST