Re: Sun vs. Intel

Hard question.

I am not impressed by standard Solaris security - it is more like workstation than server. Fine grained access control (file permissions) is not default implemented. HP UX and Linux is far better on this scale. But Solaris is OK on other security issues.

If Intel platform is a *must*, settle for Linux. Even if Win2K is stable (damm), memory requirements may out rule any windows OS. With Advanced Server and a few tricks, max. memory for the multithreaded oracle.exe is 3G without the Intel disk/memory driver layer (slower - not severe, but bad). Each shadow process uses 2M alone for stack and pga. Add sort_area, hash_area, .. you will very soon run out of memory with 400 sessions, and clients get the ora-12500 unable to spawn dedicated shadow process(lack of memory). Then you *must* run MTU.
With MTU the dba loses control, trace ability, .....

With Your setup, I feel the drawbacks with win2K are to severe to handle.

Then there is Solaris Intel or Linux left.

rgds
/svend Jensen

Gary Delong 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
Received on Sat Nov 23 2002 - 06:56:48 CST