Re: running big oracle dbms, on what kind of hardware?

"Jerry Gitomer" <jgitomer_at_erols.com> wrote in message news:8vfke6$biq$1_at_bob.news.rcn.net...
> Bastorff wrote:
> > Anyone running fairly "big" databases (ok, pretty huge where
> > I come from anyway :-)) , say 40-60GB?
> > What hardware/cpu is capable of running such a beast?
> >
> > I'm looking for experienced comments on suitable and
> > comparable systems...

 (snip)
> >
> The minimum size of your system depends on the nature of your
> appllication (OLAP vs OLTP), the number of users, and the
> amount of activity.
>
> The size of the database should not be one of the metrics used
> to select a hardware/OS configuration.
>

Yes! Of course. These and similar terms or ideas should be sort like a foundation, but I always have something of a struggle to wake applications software suppliers up to recognize and use that.

But going there was not the "plan" with my posting. It was badly put and not at all clear, just rambled away I guess. It seems I'm not that good with the "less is more" way, so I'll try the opposite :-)

Anyway,
As I try to dig out what matters by taking different approches, I guess I really was looking for

1. what kind of systems ("cpu box", not subsystems), vendor and model runs your fairly "big" or "much active" databases? Not trying to size any particular applications database here, just mostly trying to find what's out there running Oracle.
2. considering a single application, what other systems can compare themselves with Alphaserver DS20E for running Oracle dbms server and DB? For instance, what similar does SUN offer?

Looking at standard benchmarks, even some new offerings from the big names are a few steps behind the DS20. (But usually, only using benchmark figures does of course not reveal the whole picture.)

I could here add a few additional questions, but perhaps that's better saved 'til another day...

> I have seen applications where a 100Mhz Pentium was able to
> handle a 50GB database and, on the other hand, I have seen a
> smaller database with a high enough transaction rate to bury a
> two processor HP-9000 K series system.
>
> My current thinking is given the cost of Oracle and the cost
> of developing the application the cost of the processor and RAM
> isn't consequential and the cost to administer a Unix system is
> no greater than the cost to administer an NT or WIN2000 system
> doing comparable work. Therefore I would go with a Sun box
> with lots and lots of RAM a lot of disk drives and the ability
> to support four processors. If the price differential between
> two and four processors is less than 20% just go with four
> processors to begin with, otherwise go with two.
>

I like this thinking... With the cost of using and "carrying" the applications with all the resources required (many hidden), the hardware part is fadingly small, specially in the long run. It's really silly with those impressive (oww) Ghz boxes with way too sparse real mem (barely enough for the basic os) and IOPS hardly worth mentioning.

Regards and thanks,
/fad

> --
> Jerry Gitomer
> Once I learned how to spell DBA, I became one
>
Received on Wed Nov 22 2000 - 19:18:54 CST