Re: Sun vs. Intel

"Ralph Ganszky" <ralphDOTganszkyNOSPAM_at_t-online.de> wrote in message news:arm2gr$8tc$00$1_at_news.t-online.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I think that NT and also W2k is probably not able to do the job if it is
> necessary to have
> up to 400 shadow processes/threads. The reason is, that AFAIK, a process
on
> Windows can
> only have 65536 open Handles. If your database has 400 shadow threads (on
> Windows the
> shadow processes are implemented as threads), your database should not
have
> much more than
> 160 files. This statement is not valid if each shadow thread do not need
to
> open all the files.
> But I would not count on that.
>
> From the stability point of view I wouldn't see a problem on W2k due to
the
> OS. It depends on
> your hardware. Probably Windows hardware is not as stable as HA high end
> UNIX hardware
> could be, but it always depends on your companies availability
requirements
> of the system.
> If necessary you could also implement Oracle on a W2k cluster.
>
> If you don't need the dedicated processes for your database connections or
> you have much less
> than 160 files and your business is not to critical, you could save a lot
of
> money if you choose W2k,
> but if not, you better stay with your Solaris hardware.
>

I like this response, and with Ralph's permission, I'll quote it. The business won't understand a word of it, of course, but it will scare them shitless enough to stay with unix.

Regards,
Paul Received on Fri Nov 22 2002 - 16:43:43 CST