Re: Pentium or Risc processors for an Oracle Database?

Alex,

I have worked with just about every hardware platform out there, everyday at FedEx. Based upon my experience, I would not touch an Intel platform for a production system, especially a mission critical one. Intel machines are great for prototyping on, but when I deploy systems, it is strictly off an Intel platform. The main reason is the that support of hardware, O/S and Databases (Oracle, Sybase, DB2) is often a regular session of finger pointing. Microsoft blames the Database vendor, who blames the Hardware, who in turn blames both of the others.

I am perhaps luckier than most, in that my wife develops many of the internal courses for Oracle Support, and I frequently have access to the developers and PM's. And I can say from experience, that often Oracle on an Intel platform (specifically with an Micro$oft O/S) is not as well tested or supported as Solaris or HP-UNIX.

Additionally FedEx has deployed thousands of Dell EdgeServers over the past few years to customers, only to have Dell drop availability of parts within months of deployment, forcing FedEx to replace entire units.

Finally Micro$oft's O/S despite claims to the contrary, does not scale well with third party apps. I have personally benchmarked E450's against Dell PowerEdges (4 way 1.2GHZ). Configured the same in regards to memory and disk space, the Sun E450 blows the Dell PowerEdge away in memory, disk and network i/o.

So that's my .02 cents on the choices.

Jim
"Alex Gnaegi" <alex.gnaegi_at_freesurf.ch> wrote in message news:3da82696_at_news.swissonline.ch...
> Thank you John , Daniel and Howard for your answers.
>
> John
>
> I think also the TPC benchmark is realy interesting. The problem with TCP
is
> the tested systems are rarely representative of the market. Much of them
> represent a race against the highest TPC-C score without any consideration
> about the price. They are for the normal buyers irrelevant.
> Especially with Oracle Database, it is very difficult to get configuration
> with 1 to 4 processors on NT or Unix OS, precluding any comparison between
> Risc and Pentium or AMD processors.
>
> Concerning the industry bias, I also agree with you. A lot of decisions
> about hardware or software are made only to minimise the risks. I'm sure
> that the choices of platform will be completely different if the decision
> makers have to get the money of their own.
>
> Do you think Oracle for 700 users can be considered?, with how many CPU
and
> RAM?
>
> Best regards
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> "John Roberts" <jroberts_at_bogus.sprintmail.com> a écrit dans le message
news:
> ddIp9.22857$lV3.2164610_at_newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Alex,
> >
> > To arm yourself with facts rather than biased conjecture, take a look at
> the
> > benchmark sites (www.tpc.org and ecperf.theserverside.com ).
> >
> > Besides the here and now, you also need to consider industry trends:
> >
> > (1) The future of the Alpha chip is in great doubt - not enough
installed
> > base means not enough funds for R&D giving rise to a widening
performance
> > gap.
> > (2) The Intel 64 bit Itanium chip has been a dissapointment.
> > (3) Intel's power base in workstations gives it the money to invest in
> > server solutions.
> > (4) Intel and AMD take turns leapfrogging each other in the MHz wars.
We
> > will have 3 and 4 GHz chips within the year.
> > (5) Sun's Ultrasparc III cu currently tops out at 1.015 GHz. So even
> though
> > they have 64 bit architecture, the chips have less power than 32 bit
Intel
> > competitors.
> > (6) Sun has been making moves in the Linux arena, causing much
> consternation
> > in the Solaris camp. Perhaps Sun Linux is Plan B if their CPU chips
> > continue to lag Intel. They also announced belated plans to release
> Solaris
> > 9 for Intel - perhaps this is Plan C.
> >
> > Fortunately, Oracle is readily portable between platforms. For example,
> at
> > my company we often develop under Win 2K and then deploy under Solaris.
> So
> > even if you need to change your mind about platform, its usually a
simple
> > job to migrate.
> >
> > The other factor is industry bias. The saying in the 1970's was that
> nobody
> > ever got fired for recommending IBM. Today, the same can be said for
> Oracle
> > running on Solaris. If you recommend Oracle under Windows - Intel and
the
> > project goes sour, there will be plenty of people to question that
> decision.
> > Most of them on this NG.
> >
> > But Oracle under Windows runs just fine for thousands of users. The
> > hardware is cheaper and you don't need an expensive Solaris SysAdmin.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 12 2002 - 22:54:43 CDT