Re: Benchmarks

mbrugo_at_yahoo.it wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:54:16 -0800, DA Morgan
> <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote:
> >And, just as an aside, I find it nearly impossible to believe that you
> >folks have identical expertise with Solaris with HP/UX and with AIX. I'd
> >seriously consider the cost of having an O/S you don't know as well vs. one
> >you do know well.
> >
> >Daniel Morgan
>
> Dear Daniel,
> it's true, we have not a complete experience on all O.S.
> But suppose you tell me that aix is better than solaris, my company
> will buy an expert on aix, if solaris is better than HP-UX it'll buy
> an expert on solaris and so on.
>
> we want to upgrade and my question was:
> now we are running on hp-ux 9000N, from your experience
> using a SAN which is the best hw for oracle ?
>
> i thanks all people that have followed my thread
>
> Mike

Everything being equal if I was working with an application that was going to be stable for a long time I'd go with HP as I find their machines more stable. If I was looking at an environment where we'd be upgrading Oracle once a year, applying patches, etc. I'd go with Sun to get the fastest fixes. And I'm still not convinced, based on what I have heard, that SAN is ready for prime-time where stability is essential. I've had too many people tell me it is a fragile technology that is getting better but isn't quite there yet.

If performance was my sole criterion ... I'd just see which vendor was hungriest.

Daniel Morgan Received on Tue Jan 14 2003 - 15:45:04 CST