Re: Not meant to be flame bait, but...

jared_at_hwai.com (Jared) wrote in message news:<480f610.0304140618.7f52cfc7_at_posting.google.com>...
> Here's an apples and oranges question that I am trying to figure out:
>
> Given the following two machines (for argument's sake, assume each has
> the same disks and 100 MHz FSB speed (twin 7200 RPM Seagates or
> Maxtors, EIDE unless I can get Linux happy with the ATA interface).
> Assume memory is not a constraint even at 768MB total, I can keep the
> SGA small for now - so I guess it comes down to the processors):
>
> twin 533-MHz Celeron single 900MHz Athlon (T-bird)
> 768MB 1 GB memory
>
> Which would make a better Oracle server? Should it run Win2K or
> Linux? I am starting a venture with a friend at home and am going to
> set up a machine with 9i and 9iAS. I would rather keep them on the
> same machine for now (I have configured n-tier professionally several
> times, but I only have so many machines at home).

The multi-processor will likely be much happier allowing oracle to do it's thing and the iAS do it's thing. Linux is much better about getting out of it's own way than NT, especially if you have more than just a db running. Lack of spindles will probably mean less relative processor waiting on the slower processor.

The memory will determine how many users you can have simultaneously, unless you don't care quite so much about performance but rather how many can connect.

This is impossible to really determine without testing.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
Either one will burn itself up anyways.