Re: Oracle8 on Linux ok?

"Søren Klintrup" <bigchief_at_aub.dk> kirjoitteli seuraavaa:

>
>George Dau <gedau_at_isa.mim.com.au> wrote in message
>news:37136a1d.71500281_at_158.54.6.109...
>> "Søren Klintrup" <bigchief_at_aub.dk> wrote:
>>
>> ]I've seen many Linux systems crash ... more than NT in fact ... - not
>that
>> ]is says anything .. just my personal experience ...
>>

You have seen a Linux crash? On what? Faulty hardware? I'd like to hear as I haven't had such a luck.

>> I've seen many systems of all types crash, from my lawnmower to a Unisys
>> 2200/400 mainframe. I'd be very interested in details of the above though.

Hmm ... seems to me that details of abovementionded crashes are missing, just trolling?

>>How
>> long do your NT boxes stay up for? (The ones with Oracle on them).
>
>I am a newly started Oracle DBA, so my Oracle box havn't been up for more
>than 20 days in a row, but then again .. it never crashed, i rebooted the
>machine for an upgrade of a driver..

Only 20 days? You can say something about stability after couple of months. Before that it will be too hasty, whatever the platform is.

>But I have had an NT Server wich has been running for 1½ year without ever
>being rebooted nor crashed wich i may say is quite impressive .. - the final
>steps of the box was to tear it apart for an upgrade, and in the same "step"
>reinstalling the OS (for the SMP functionality), it CAN be done with
>uptosmp, but i didn't want to try .. :)

It was shut down every night and weekends?

>I've been Working with several NT Servers, I havn't seen NT Crash unless it
>was faulty hardware, and if it is faulty hardware, well ... it's not NT to
>blame ..

Haven't seen NT server to crash for a while, couple of totally stuck I have seen this month, the other one was my work machine with 8.0.4 running on it. (Sluggish response even when CPU-load was only couple of percents and about 40M of free memory : rebooting helped)

>I'm not the type of person who will only use one OS and then defend it by
>all means ... I think that most of the Anti-MS Hype out there is based on
>Windows 9x, wich ain't a bussiness OS, and people tend to try to compare it
>with linux and others ... 9x and NT is two different worlds the only thing
>alike is the look and feel of the GUI (roughly speaking) ...

NT isn't much better. Where did you think acronym BSOD came from?

>I started on using Linux 1½ year ago, but wasn't impressed, I don't want to
>go looking for kernel-patch after kernel-patch after kernel-patch to make
>simple tings work...

I got everything on a single CD and everything I tried, worked. You _may_ install kernel-patches if you wish, but if you use stabile kernel version you usually don't have to. Using kernel under development is essentially the same as using beta-versions.

Espesially, you don't mention distribution, which is essential : RedHat has always the newest programs and that means that it's less tested, Debian and Slackware are more thoroughly tested, but they often have older versions.

>it might be that it's only in this first years of the
>OS that it's gonna be like that ... but why settle for less, don't get me
>wrong .. RedHAT is the easiest of the FreeBSD/Linux to install and setup,
>but I'm not looking for another Windows ... already got that ..

RedHat is windows-clone on Linux-kernel, full of bugs that nobody has time to fix because they are too busy developing new version. (And this is just my opinion, I'm quite sure that many won't agree :-) )

Tuomas
--

hosia_at_lut.fi(Tuomas Hosia) DoD#1684   \ On paljon hauskempi olla pakanana,
Lappeenranta University of Technology \ ei tarvitse koskaan olla vakavana.
Kotisivu: http://www.lut.fi/~hosia/   \      -o Eppu Normaali o-