Re: System config suggestions

rob wrote:

> > I don't know about that one.
> > Unisys makes a 32 CPU wintel box that *just might* be able to handle IIS
> > and Oracle in the same box.
> > 512 MB per CPU minimum is a decent rule of thumb.
>
> Wouldn't you prefer to buy 2 different systems if you'r investing that kind
> of money? Ofcourse, 32 CPU's will probably handle the workload but I don't
> think that's what they had in mind. And when adding more power because your
> having performance problems with the database; only part of it will be used
> by the database. My experience is that you save yourself a lot of trouble
> when using a database server only as a database server.

yes - very much so. wouldn't have it any other way. this was a crack at the Intel_CPU_centric types that think more CPUs can solve everything.
more bandwidth on the mainboard, more I/O capacity in the storge system can solve problems.

Dell just came out with a new PowerEdge model - 2500SC. it ships with 3 PCI buses and

2 64-bit/66 MHz PCI slots
3 64-bit/33 MHz PCI slots
2 32-bit/33 MHz PCI slots

Only 6 internal drive bays - this box is more designed for hanging external storage off of it.
Maxes out at 1.5 GB of RAM - which still gives you 1 GB for Oracle. Can't wait to see what they pack into the 4500 series.

for $7564 - you can get the following:

Dual PIII 933 MHz
1 GB RAM
6 x 18 GB 10K hard drives (ultra/160m) - full cabinet Perc3Di - dual channel integrated RAID controller dual fast ethernet adapters (Intel EtherExpress Pro+ 100) 20/40 DDS4 internal tape
veritas
W2K Server (what exactly is Linux 7.0 ? AFAIK - there is no such thing) warranty
external modem

yum.

Paul

>
>
> >
> > Ok - seriously - unless you have a Site License - you're probably paying
> > oracle by the UPU - universal power unit.
> > For the cost of a 2nd 1 GB CPU in power units - you can more than afford
> > another mid-to-high-end Intel-based box.
> > Oracle Server Standard Edition retails at $15 per UPU - or $15,000 for a 1
 GHz CPU.
> > A manager can understand that.
>
> Very strong argument indeed; eventualy it will be cheaper. ;-)
>
> Rob.
Received on Tue Jun 12 2001 - 19:01:12 CDT