Re: Solaris vs. Linux sun vs intel ???

What a pathetic display of a perceived technology superiority complex at its best. :)

"Todd Gillespie" <toddg_at_linux127.ma.utexas.edu> wrote in message news:9af1ub$ac3$1_at_geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> I'm going to have to call you on this post. 10 threads down, you're
> posting about how you can't understand tablespace allocation &
> extension. Stock install, on linux. I'm just not brimming with
> confidence for your DBA skills.
>
> But I'll do point for point anyway.
>
> Bastiaan Schaap <bschaap_at_desyde.nl> wrote:
> : Everyone mentions IO bandwith, performance and prices here, but I always
>
> That's because it's really fucking important. And my point was that perf
> on the Suns was better, but if you make the effort, you can get quite
> close with PCs (to the low end Suns, 220s & the like).
>
> : prefer to compare such different systems in terms of TCO. (total cost of
> : ownership). It is true that the initial investment that has to be made
 for
>
> Yeah, we know what TCO is.
>
> : the sun/solaris platform is much bigger, no doubt. However these costs
 are
> : most of the time only a fraction of the total cost a company has to
 spend in
> : order to get a system working or (even more important) keep it working.
 My
>
> How about compared to $20k per processor per year for Oracle? The OS
> choice is chump change. That's just not what we're talking about here.
>
> : experience is that the information and support available for Oracle on
> : linux/intel platforms is hard to find, and most of the time very
 specific to
> : a certain distro, kernel, etc. So the total cost for the maintenance of
> : these machines is MUCH higher than for Oracle on the sun/solaris
 platform.
>
> Lay off the weed, man. I'm swimming in linux/Ora docs, technet.oracle can
> hook you up, or just google it. 'Specific to distro' is total crap, as is
> kernel - the official Oracle docs are very specific - glibc 2.1, certain
> segment & shared mem tuning params in the kernel. Any competent admin
> could handle those requirements over lunch, while keeping one hand on a
> sandwich at all times.
> The only 2 datums you have entered are 'information hard to find' and
> 'kernel specific'. How does that prove "MUCH" higher TCO? I'm thinking
> my admin could find the docs, scream at the Oracle support person, or
> whatever, and maybe spend a few days playing with Linux that he wouldn't
> have played with Solaris. Hardly an order-of-magnitude jump in costs.
>
> : Keep in mind that Oracle themselves use sun/solaris as their development
> : environment (!), and a lot of support concerning Oracle and Sun hardware
 is
> : widely available and very specific. Currently we are running 32
 databases
>
> That is strongly correct, and the best argument in your post. Bug fixes
> will appear on Solaris, no contest.
>
> : on linux, and we're in the process of migrating *all* of them to Sun
> : enterprise 2500's.
>
> Um, because you can pack 8 processors & 16-64 GB of RAM in one box, and
> drop the migration software? Oh, I see Sun isn't offering 2500s in the
> states anymore; nonetheless.
>
> : After carefully determining our TCO of the linux boxes,
> : we've come to the conclusion that maintenance costs are actually much
 lower
> : for the sun/solaris platform (over a 5yr period)...
>
> Uh huh. And you got 5 years of data of Oracle on Linux how, exactly?
>
> Funny; there are good & bad reasons for both platforms, but you seem to
> have missed most of them, and hit the wrong ones.
>
Received on Fri Apr 06 2001 - 00:55:56 CDT