Re: Oracle 8i on NT - Your Opinions

Group,

Agree that NT is workable below a certain size, and this system seems inside the workable range. Given cost-differences, it would be better off on NT then on Solaris.

Pitfalls I've come across on NT :

• upscaling will not work unless your sysadmin knows how to use >1 disk access path (and default raid-5 does not cut it then). Sound like this is not an issue for you. - high transactions rates (logswitches) will stop you, especially if you put logfile-groups in the same raid5 disk as all the other database files. On raid-5, use single-file log-groups, it is much faster (I know some ppl will flame on this, but I hate writing identical data, sometimes to the same dir, on a raid-5...). Again, your system seems within the limits.
• hot backups : don't try it on NT unless you have serious expertise in house. (as stated berfore, the backup might still be ok, the restore may never work!).

Best Advice : Use the cost-saving you get from NT (hardware, license) to buy some additional expertise to prepare your project.

Hope this helps,
PdV
(not particularly fond of unix either)

"Vick" <vramming_at_my-deja.com> wrote in message news:968q6p$90$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> While I am certainly no Oracle expert, I have been running Oracle 7.3.4
> on NT4 SP 4 with two databases (42 GB and 25 GB)and only 1 GB of RAM.
> We replicate nightly to a web enabled datawarehouse. The server has
> been down twice since November 1997, once because the prior DBA decided
> to do something stupid. And once because there was a lightning strike
> to our datacenter.
> Oracle and NT are not the most agreeable of combinations, NT does throw
> some awful quirks in to the mix. I agree wholeheartedly with the other
> poster though -- if your Solaris recommenders aren't going to be the
> users and supporters of the DB, and you are bringing someone in, stick
> with NT.
>
> Also, if you can, make sure that you are setting the server up with a
> RAID 5 drive set for the data and first set of control and redo logs
> and then another physical drive (not in the RAID) for the backup copies
> of the control and logs.
>
> And a final word, nightly cold backups are wonderful... as soon as you
> do the first one, try to restore it... really. It can be quite
> exciting, but much less so when no one is standing over your shoulder
> screaming.
>
> Best luck...
>
> In article <3a86d4f2.3916010_at_news.gci-net.com>,
> precipice_no_spam_at_gci-net.com wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Received on Mon Feb 12 2001 - 12:43:37 CST