Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

Re: Newbie's Oracle 9i impression: it sucks

From: Dusan Bolek <pagesflames_at_usa.net>
Date: 24 May 2002 00:00:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1e8276d6.0205232300.61fcacfb@posting.google.com>


sqljoe_at_aol.com (SQLJoe) wrote in message news:<20020522071819.21008.00000152_at_mb-fo.aol.com>...
> Windows far exceeds Unix in multitasking. Its memory management is also
> superior due to the fact that it is a single process\multiple thread OS and it
> MUST manage its memory better in order to be stable. The advantage of this
> architecture is that it is superior in true multitasking.
> Unix is a Multiple Process\single thread OS and memory management is not as
> sophisticated nor is it as necessary. The advantage of this architecture is
> that there is no shared memory involved and there is little chance of memory
> crash.

Hm, sorry I know that I'm very backward, but I still prefer multitasking in Unix way. For example I know that is very modern multitasking aproach to hang computer for a while while reading badly damaged CD-ROM, but I prefer the old fashioned Unix way with just one simple error message and no impact on rest of system. I also prefer that exhausting of memory will slow server, but not crashing or hang it.

> Just what are these "must have" functionality you are referring to which
> Windows don't have??? I don't know any functionality which Windows lacks
> which Unix provides.

Scalability, stability and performance.
So I need an environment which can be easily transformed to 64-bit. I need environment which can deal with heavy load, not the one which must be rebooted after heavy load because memory management is not as good as supposed to be and cannot recover from full memory occupation. I need environment which run (or can be operated) even if all memory including swap is exhausted. How can I fix an error which caused big memory allocation on system, which response to exhausting swap is one error message and ten minute waiting for simple login or unlock screen?

> The perception (not reality) is that Windows 2000 is unstable. Certainly,
> Windows NT was unstable, but Windows2000 has fixed this problem. This is
> NOT to say it is AS stable as Unix, but it certainly isn't unstable. I have seen
> Windows2000 Database servers run for YEARS (2 to be exact) and they have
> NEVER crashed. I am sure others can testify to teh same effect.

Is great that we need to wait to year 2000 for feature already done in seventies on Unix. However I still can feel a distinct difference between stable and not unstable system. Is great that some system would not crash in normal load, but I want a system which can work even under heavy pressure.

> Finally, XP is a client machine, and it is architecturally VERY different from
> Windows2000 Servers. Your IE problem is just that, an IE problem, not an OS
> problem.

No it is not. Just read some Microsoft's papers. The same is NT Server and Workstation, same system with built-in limits for number of CPUs and some networking stuff. You can even find a doc, which tell you how you can switch Workstation to Server just with editing of few files. XP is the same as 2000, with new look and few changes "under hood".

--
_________________________________________

Dusan Bolek, Ing.
Oracle team leader

Note: pagesflames_at_usa.net has been cancelled due to changes (maybe we
can call it an overture to bankruptcy) on that server. I'm still using
this email to prevent SPAM. Maybe one day I will change it and have a
proper mail even for news, but right now I can be reached by this
email.
Received on Fri May 24 2002 - 02:00:24 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US