Re: Sun vs. Intel

Sybrand is usually right, if a little doctrinaire, but both the OP and he seem to be stuck in NT world.. The W2K Advanced Server is much more stable and crash-resistant than any previous Windows offering ( the vote is still out on XP Pro and its server options) - It may not be as scalable as a good UNIX box, but, with Multi-processor support and connected to a well managed SAN, it should be able to handle your tasks...

Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:42:51 -0500, Gary Delong <gdelong_at_SEE-SIG.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Don't want to start a war, but management here read the
>>recent Business Week article about using Dell servers
>>to replace Sun servers and saving "Big Bucks". As the
>>Unix admin, I've been asked to comment, but lack any
>>real feel for the Oracle on Intel environment.
>>
>>We currently have Oracle 8i running on a 6 CPU E3500
>>w/Solaris 8 and a database of about 80GB. It serves a
>>couple of frontend NT boxes and often sees 300 to 400
>>oracle processes.
>>
>>Since I'm a Unix/Sun guy, I'm obviously a little biased,
>>but willing to listen anyone who can expound on the pros
>>and cons of making this type of move.
>>
>>I appreceate your thoughts.
>>
>>Thanks much,
>>--Gary
>>
>>email gdelong at conversent dot com
>
>
>NT is by design less scalable than any Unix implementation, and
>definitely crashes more often. Also, if you search the newsgroup
>archives you should be capable to find several tests which demonstrate
>Solaris is faster.
>As to the size of the databases and the number of processes: I don't
>think any NT config will be capable to manage this, the person
>premeditating this move seems to be willing to bring the company in
>Chapter 12 state.
>If management decides to proceed, make sure you have a different job
>before the NT implementation goes live, or you won't survive it.
>
>Regards
>
>
>Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>
>To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
Received on Fri Nov 22 2002 - 12:52:14 CST