I worked at a place where we were able to get 1,500 concurrent users with a
well behaved application on NT.(bind variables, cursor reuse, mainly well
tuned queries, array interface - we were using oci) we could not get more
due to a limitation in NT with the number of threads per process. We did
have a lot of spindles and controllers. Whether or not NT is as stable as
Unix is an entirely different question. In our case that's what customers
wanted as a choice for an OS (along with Solarias, HPUX, AIX etc.). Yes, in
general the UNIX OS seemed to handle the same load better, but NT did work.
This was on 7.3.4.
Jim
"A. Fox" <afox.nospam_at_rogers.com> wrote in message
news:Tfhm9.114122$q41.59828_at_news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> First off, thanks to Thomas for the reply with an actual link. To answer
his question, yes I read the Admin Guide, and still looking
> for more. I took a course some time ago on Oracle 7 administration on NT,
and it was full of useful tips that cannot be found in the
> Guides. With 8i and W2K, I suspect there are changes from what I learned 5
years ago.
>
> Secondly, I did not intend my post to trigger a discussion on the
viability of large DBs on NT. In my situation it's a done deal.
> That said, I still do feel sceptical about NT as a platform, and this is
the reason I am trying to gather information about making
> the best out of it. The server is 4 processors with 4Gb of RAM and an
external disk array. I found NT mentioned in the general RAID
> articles, and some memory tuning info in the Guide, but if anybody has any
additional info on the subject I would appreciate a
> reference.
>
> Thanks.
> A.Fox
>
> "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:anbl8q$so2$1$8302bc10_at_news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > Comments in line.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> >
> > Jonathan Lewis
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
> >
> > Next Seminar dates:
> > (see http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html )
> >
> > ____USA__________November 7/9 (MI), 19/21 (TX)
> > ____England______November 12/14
> >
> > The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
> > http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > tingl wrote in message ...
> > >Connor McDonald <connor_mcdonald_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3D9889BB.6634_at_yahoo.com>...
> > >>
> > >> Running SAP on Win2K, user base about 2000, concurrent users about
300,
> > >> concurrent db connections (since SAP pools them) about 100.
> > >>
> > >> No problems - runs an absolute treat.
> > >>
> >
> >
> > This seems to have achieved a reasonable degree of scalability - and
> > running SAP, too !
> >
> >
> > >> The real importance is the gear you buy. I have no doubt that if we
> > >> were running Unix on the gear we've got, it would probably be faster,
> > >> but the Win2k has been up since about July - no reboots, crashes
> > >>
> >
> >
> > Clearly a guy who knows how to get Oracle to work well.
> >
> >
> >
> > >I would not recommend running a 500GB database on W2K for three
reasons.
> > >
> > >1. Scalability
> > >2. Scalability
> > >3. Scalability
> >
> > Funny, I would have said that 300 concurrent users through 100 pooled
> > connections showed a reasonable degree of scalability. Maybe if the
> > 500 GB is distributed over enough spindles there won't be a problem.
> > And if he puts it on just 8 spindles it will be a problem whatever O/S
> > he uses.
> >
> > Frankly, I wouldn't put in a comment like yours without some concrete
> > backup as a response to some real-life statistics that prove you fairly
> > close to wrong.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 01 2002 - 09:20:02 CDT
