Re: Benchmarks

From: Sean McKeown <smckeown_at_adelphia.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:16:21 -0700
Message-ID: <3E24D285.43B81E89@adelphia.net>

DA Morgan wrote:
>
> 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

Mostly I agree, except for the SAN part. If anything our SAN environments are *more* stable than their directly attached counterparts. It ain't cheap though. In that respect it's hard to beat NAS for price/performance/stability/simplicity in an Oracle database environment.

Regards,
Sean Received on Tue Jan 14 2003 - 21:16:21 CST