Re: Oracle 8i on NT - Your Opinions

I think the hardware config is a big player as well

"Howard J. Rogers" <howardjr_at_www.com> wrote in message news:3a870655_at_news.iprimus.com.au...
> This one does the rounds regularly enough that you could probably search
> Deja.com and find all previous rants and rages on the subject....
>
> Nevertheless, my particular advice runs like this: One performance tuning
> guru, who shall remain nameless, was heard once to say that running on NT
> was the questioner's first problem, and that tuning NT properly is
> intrinsically much harder than Solaris, and the results are always worse
 (NT
> does things with its thread priorities behind the scenes that you or I
 could
> not influence in a month of Sundays).
>
> Windows 2000 is extremely stable in comparison with any earlier version of
> NT, which is good (and I use it myself at home, on an Oracle Server) and
> it's been up and running for months at a time. But I think most Solaris
> Users would just laugh when we MS users state with pride that we've kept a
> server up for 9 months -they can measure their up-time in years (if they
> know what they are doing, of course).
>
> Solaris will scale into the Petabytes and the thousands of Users. I'm not
> saying Windows 2000 can't do it, but you'd be embarking on a bold new
> journey if you were to try it -it's still to new to know whether it will
> scale successfully into the statosphere or not. But since you don't seem
> likely to push the stratosphere in the future, this shouldn't be a concern
> (but I bet its lurking in the back of your IT folk's head as a "good
 thing"
> for Solaris. So it is -but if you don't need it, the advantage is moot).
>
> At the end of the day, the thing will have to be looked after by a DBA
 (and
> team). Do they know and love Solaris? Or are they Windows bods? If they
> have sold their souls to the great Satan, can they be trained to get it
 back
> again as they learn to tackle Solaris?
>
> I think my point comes down to this: Windows 2000 is a reasonably stable
> platform for Oracle, but if stability were absolutely critical, then
 Solaris
> would beat it. Windows 2000 can be scaled (to a point), but if you've got
> ambitions in that direction, Solaris would beat it. Performance is
 adequate
> on Windows 2000, but if performance was absolutely critical, Solaris would
> beat it.
>
> BUT... you need people who can actually work with your choice.
>
> In short, Solaris would be a gold-plated solution, and Windows might well
 be
> good enough. Make sure those recommending the Solaris solution are not
 just
> indulging in an intellectual wank along the lines of "Microsoft is evil,
> Unix is good". Get *them* to justify their push for Solaris, and weigh
> their arguments on their merits and (above all) their *relevancy* (by
 which
> I mean that it's no good pushing for something that can stay up for years
 at
> a time if you are in fact intending to do nightly COLD backups!)
>
> Just my two cents'-worth
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
>
> <precipice_no_spam_at_gci-net.com> wrote in message
> news:3a86d4f2.3916010_at_news.gci-net.com...
> > Hi
> >
> > We are in the midst of setting up a small to medium size project for
> > some chemistry tracking procedures. We are using a commercial product
> > that will act as a front end to the chem stuff but uses Oracle as a
> > back end. We were considering using Oracle on NT (8i) as our database
> > server to leverage some of our existing experience and to perserve the
> > sanity of the specialist we are going to hire that will have to
> > maintain an IIS web server and act as a part time dba. Learning 1
> > system is always easier than 2 distinct like NT and Solaris.
> >
> > We anticipate 1 heavy user to generate about 5 mb of data per week for
> > the first year of the project. The others should be well under 1 mb
> > absolute max per week. After the initial data explosion - we know
> > that the users will be focusing in on specific portions and resting
> > some of their results with the data already entered and adding a
> > minimal amount of new data. We are a research institute and not a
> > commercial enterprise. In other words, as the project goes on we
> > should not have large data requirements. We were going to leverage
> > the Oracle server machine to store some web results and act as a
> > backend to some data that we were going to present on the web. Not a
> > whole lot.
> >
> > Some of our IT folks are extremely adamant that we should not choose
> > NT and go Solaris. My question to the Oracle gurus is whether or not
> > we are totally off base in attempting to use NT. What are your
> > opinions - pro and con. How well does it run as compared to Solaris,
> > is it stable, what type of hardware would we need.
> >
> > We were thinking of something along the following lines for hardware:
> > · Dual Processor 933MHz with 256K Cache,P3 Xeon
> > · 2GB RAM,133MHz,8 X 256MB DIMMs
> > · PERC3-Di RAID Enabler Kit with128MB Cache
> > · 2x18G,10K,1.0 IN,U3,Removable,w/Cage
> > · 8-Bay Split 2 X 4 Hard DriveCage
> > · 6X18GB 10000RPM,1.0 IN,U3,HardDrives
> >
> > Perhaps a Dell Poweredge 4400.
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > jph
>
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 11 2001 - 22:25:43 CST