Re: Linux vs Windows

> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
> > Frequently it is asserted in this NG that Linux is more stable
> > and scalable than win2k when running Oracle. Does anyone know
> > if there are any benchmarks/comparisons which demonstrate
> > this. Most of the time ISTM that this is just overspill from
> > the old MS vs Rest of The world debate.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niall Litchfield
> > Oracle DBA
> > Audit Commission UK
> >
> >
>
> Like you, I have not seen any hard data. On the other hand,
> Linux has always been a stable operating system and Win 3.x,
> Win 9x, and Windows NT have not been stable. In fact when
> Windows 2K was introduced one of major advantages claimed by MS
> was that it wouldn't crash once a month or more like NT did.
> Of course when NT was their flagship they claimed it was stable.
>
> --
> Jerry Gitomer
> Once I learned how to spell DBA, I became one

I have, in the last two years, consulted at two Fortune 500 companies. Both of which had testing laboratories where this type of research was done. While it would be a breach of confidentiality to publish internal results I can tell you this: Both companies allow Linux to be used for LOB (line-of-business) server applications (not just with Oracle) and both restrict Windows NT and 2000 to department level servers only. And one could reasonably assume they are testing for scalability, stability, and security (the three Ss) as well as performance.

I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

Daniel A. Morgan Received on Fri Mar 09 2001 - 00:33:13 CST