Re: The "Ideal" platform for Oracle - please throw in your $.02

Tuomas Hosia wrote:
>
> cdodson_at_i.cant.say.com***(email spammers must die) kirjoitteli
> seuraavaa:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> > I've been tasked with choosing the next generation hardware platform
> >that we will run our Oracle DB on. It's currently on a K-class HP (2x180 mhz
> >cpu, 1 gb RAM) and we're pushing the machine its limits. We also have a
> >replicated copy of the DB on a Sun SPARC 30000 (2x250mhz CPU, 512mb RAM) which
> >does duty as a "reporting" DB (mostly read-only). I've read quite a bit about
> >both the new SPARC 400mhz line (5500 is the most likely for us) as well as the
> >HP V-class (440mhz PA8500 CPU). Both can scale to at least 16 processors, both
> >have some great storage options, and both have very robust 64 bit unix
> >operating systems. And then there's all these new 4-way Xeon Intel servers
> >running NT for about 1/4 of the money of the big unix iron.
> >
>
> And you get what you pay for, not more. Flashy benchmark results, low
> IO, inadequate memory handling.
>
> Salesmen may say something different but if they really believe what
> they say, they'd lend you machine for a test run.
>
> Worst bottleneck on NT-machine is PC-class IO. Better alternative
> would be Alpha with it's workstation-class motherboard but I doubt
> even it could compete with HP.
>
> Suits if you have a lot of calculation and very little IO, not else.
>
> >So, I'll put it to all of you DBA's out there who might also dabble in
> >hardware - what's the "best" platform for Oracle in terms of performance, cost
> >and reliability ? Is NT stable enough for consideration ?
>
> I don't know enough of Sun or HP to say anything of them but NT is not
> scalable enough. It's an operating system designed for one user with
> low IO-requirements.
>
> Just my 0.02 EUR
>

Actually the IO, especially the disk IO is the strongest part of NT. Care to compare the lazy write UNIX to NTFS? How about security, recoverability and the ability to defragment NTFS vs whatever UNIX flavor (ext2 I assume) you are comparing it to. I agree that NT usually sucks compared to its UNIX competitors, but when comparing file systems and disk IO you cannot beat the performance of NT. Also 4 or 8 Xeon 450 with 1M full speed cache can give both the HP and Sun a good run for 1/2 the money.

Stilian Received on Tue Mar 09 1999 - 16:04:32 CST