Re: Oracle on Intel vs. Oracle on Sparc

From: Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:30:39 GMT
Message-ID: <3CBB1C4A.1F6ABF29@exesolutions.com>

I would only go to Wintel as a last resort. But what makes you think you can't afford another UNIX box?

Check these out:
HP 9000 K360 Enterprise Server, Model A5140A

         Four HP PA-8000 180MHz CPUs w/2MB Cache (A3261-60004)
         256 MB ECC RAM
         Two 2.0GB Fast-Wide Internal SCSI Drives
         100Base-T 2 Port LAN Adapter (J3514A)
         SCSI CD-ROM
         700/94 System Console w/keyboard (C1002A)
         HPUX 11.0 pre-installed using Ignite server (HPUX 10.20 available

as well)
Asking price $745 on eBay. How much more would you need to spend on RAM and storage?

Sun Microsystems Enterprise 450 Server

 -4 x 300MHz UltraSPARC-II CPU
 -4 GB ram
 -4 x 18GB, 10K rpm disk (72 GB total)
 -2 power supplies
 -cd-rom, 10/100 Ethernet

Asking price on eBay $5000

And these were just the first one's I spotted.

None of them are mine, nor do I know who is selling them, so please don't accuse me of marketing here. My point is that if you don't demand brand new equipment you can get great deals on good UNIX boxes way under the price of a Wintel box that wouldn't be nearly as stable, as secure, or perform as well.

Daniel Morgan

Robert Schultz wrote:

> A product we are using requires a Oracle database.
> We are currently running Oracle 8 on a Sun 220R box.
>
> We need to upgrade the hardware substantially in terms of CPU and hard
> drive space for an upgrade.
>
> Due to financial limitations it does not appear as if we can continue
> with Sun Sparc hardware.
>
> Thus we are looking to go with Intel hardware (Dell Servers).
>
> I was wondering what sort of data or information any of you can share
> on performance issues.
>
> Four Options:
> 1. Oracle on Solaris on Sparc Sun Servers
> 2. Oracle on Solaris on Intel Dell Servers
> 3. Oracle on Linux on Intel Dell Servers
> 4. Oracle on Windows 2000 on Intel Dell Servers
>
> As mentioned before we don't have the funds to go with option 1.
> That leaves us with the remaining three options.
>
> In terms of performance, we don't have a need to transfer a large
> amount of data.
> It will be a lot more small little hits to the database.
>
> Thus big data transfers won't be as common.
> So We're looking for more responsivness than large bandwidth
> transfers.
>
> So could someone enlighten me on what sort of performance we can
> expect from these systems on those platforms? (options 2,3,4)
>
> ALL advice is requested please.
Received on Mon Apr 15 2002 - 13:30:39 CDT