Re: Why doesn't Oracle care about Linux as IBM does?

Dino

I think Larry actually mentioned in his OpenWorld speech something about making use of RAC to cluster lots of small boxes. I think this is something you're going to see more of from any vendor who works on Linux, not just Oracle, and it only makes sense now that clustering has been available with Linux for some time. I don't think there's a great deal of point in working on porting something which might have only a small uptake because of the applicable environment size.

We've had people using Sun boxes and HP boxes because the clustering has been available for them for quite some time. It will be interesting to see how many of those clients move to Linux clusters. From my personal perspective (of course I've been wrong before and I could be again!), I don't think there's going to be a great rush to do this (if you've already got something working well, why change it?). But Linux clusters may make a lot of sense to those sites that have a web presence today and who want to be up and running 24 hours a day.

--
HTH.  Additions and corrections welcome.

Pete
Author of "Oracle8i: Architecture and Administration Exam Cram"
Now got a life back again that the book is released!

"Controlling developers is like herding cats."
Kevin Loney, Oracle DBA Handbook

"Oh no, it's not.  It's much harder than that!"
Bruce Pihlamae, long-term Oracle DBA

"Dino Hsu" <dino1_at_ms1.hinet.net> wrote in message
news:51lbntg33ladlfj20gvsoid4hr5f6cu3jg_at_4ax.com...


> Dear all,

>

> I believe that Charles makes a very good point here. It makes perfect

> sense that IBM, as a H/W and business solution provider (database

> too), embraces an emerging OS such as Linux, more proactively than

> others do. There is one thing, however, I don't understand about

> Larry's Oracle 9i release speech, which promotes Oracle 9i as 'real

> appliction clusters' while taking IBM DB2 as 'runs nothing, shares

> nothing'. Let's assume this is correctly stated without exageration,

> and think: what will be the most cost-effective solution to make a

> cluster? Probably Linux over an Intel cluster. Because the 'real

> application cluster' can increase reliability and performance at the

> same time with every added computer, it is a great opportunity to

> promote Oracle 9i with a Linux solution, say with 1024 Intel boxes.

> Yes, Oracle's has most its sales from HP and Sun users, there is

> another potential threats: cluster can be made on the OS level instead

> of DB level, do you think Microsoft, IBM, HP, SUN etc. are not

> interested in making OS clusters? Obviously not. I used to make a wild

> guess that the Oracle 9i 'real application cluster' can be made among

> Oracle's of different platforms, but it cannot.

>

> I am not an expert on clustering, correct me if I am wrong in any

> part. Thanks in advance.

>

> Dino

>

> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 00:14:54 GMT, "Charles Webber"

> <charlesw7_at_earthlink.net> wrote:

>

> >This is my personal opinion.

> >I think Oracle does a pretty good job of embracing the Linux community.

> >They haven't pumped billions into Linux research like IBM and I wouldn't

> >expect them to.  Let me explain.

> >IBM and Microsoft have a long feud going which goes back to before

Windows


> >95 came out.  IBM released OS/2, which I believe was co-developed by IBM

and


> >Microsoft.  Then MS pulls out of the deal, announces that they'll have a

new


> >OS - Windows 95 and IBM is left holding the bag for development,

marketing


> >etc. on an OS that eventually fails.

> >With Linux, IBM can put some money behind the product, and also get the

> >benefit of the open-source community to make a dent in MS.

> >Oracle's plan is a little different.  Oracle is a DATABASE company.

Oracle


> >doesn't care where the DB runs.  They've got their product ported to

Linux,


> >they have information forums about Linux, but they mainly target the big

> >guys running Sun or HP servers.  Until and unless the Linux community

grows,


> >I don't see Oracle doing any more than they are, and I don't believe they

> >should.

> >Just one man's humble opinion.

> >

> >"Dino Hsu" <dino1_at_ms1.hinet.net> wrote in message

> >news:2v3ant40th3s908so2458bg6gvb4lh2nib_at_4ax.com...

> >> Dear all,

> >>

> >> I am confused when I see this line everywhere:

> >> "We discovered that nothing runs on Linux bettern than DB2"

> >> Oracle doesn't seem to care too much about Linux, it's 9i only

> >> supports one SuSe distribution. (if it cares, Red Hat and other major

> >> distributions should be supported as well).

> >>

> >> Furthermore, many people here (senior DBA's) don't think of Linux as a

> >> 'Unix'. To them, Unix means IBM AIX, Sun Solaris, HP-UX, etc.. This

> >> may be due to Linux's growing up from PC-based machines, although

> >> later ported to many different H/W platforms.

> >>

> >> On the other hand, IBM is so supportive about Linux, it even uses

> >> Linux in the world's biggest supercomputer:

> >> http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010809S0018

> >> Linux and AIX are both Unix's, IBM may have to choose one of them as a

> >> result. Is it because IBM likes open source software so much that it

> >> cannot but take Linux back home?

> >>

> >> Can someone comment on this? Thanks in advance.

> >>

> >> Dino

> >>

> >>

> >

>