Re: SUN E450 vs. Compaq Proliant 3000

I have substantial experience on both platforms and I would choose Sun/Solaris over any Windows based platform every time. With Sun/Solaris you may be forced to reboot your production server once or twice a year: With NT it is good practice to do so once a week. And if you don't it may well do it for you by crashing like a cheap plane. The problem isn't Oracle ... it is Windows. And from what I've seen of Windows 2000 my opinion toward Windows is not changed.

Your management may gripe about spending more for the UNIX platform but just remind them that they are going to spend the money one way or the other. They can spend it on a piece of depreciable hardware that is an asset or they can spend it on manpower cleaning up the messes Windows makes.

Daniel A. Morgan

hwkump_at_my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <7jp56k$p6u$1_at_news.eecs.umich.edu>,
> "Peter Wu" <wupz_at_umich.edu> wrote:
> > Hi, We are at a point to upgrade our server to a faster machine, which
> will
> > run Oracle 8.1.5. There is suggestion that we can buy a Sun Enterprise
> > Server 450 or a Compaq Proliant 3000. Both machines have dual
> processors:
> > SparcII 400Mhz vs. Pentium II 400 Mhz, and both will have 2GB memory.
> >
> > E450 will run Solaris 2.7 and Proliant3000 will run Windows NT.
> >
> > Does anyone have experience to help us decide?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> We have two E450's (one is 2.6, one 2.5.1) running Oracle 7.3.4, and
> have never had a problem. Performance and reliability are great. I
> would definitely get the optional second power supply.
>
> I have only second-hand knowledge of Oracle on NT. I am told it is not
> very stable or reliable.
>
> Good luck!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Received on Mon Jun 21 1999 - 16:42:08 CDT