Re: Running Instances on Windoz

vslabs_at_onwe.co.za (Billy Verreynne) wrote in message news:<1a75df45.0311240031.348c4936_at_posting.google.com>...
> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote
> >
> > Every time I try to treat Windows as a professional platform it treats
> > me with all the love Michael Jackson has for a child. But I don't get
> > any candy or animal rides or millions of dollars.
>
> Hehehe.. funny. But it still does not change the fact that Windows can
> be and is being used as a *successful* mission critical corporate
> platform.

Well, I see _every_ IT shop that has Windows, mission-critical or not, spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with the basic security issues that affect all Windows software, for reasons that have been obvious for years. The success is in spite of, not because of.

>
> Hey, from a techie view point I prefer Unix and use Windows as my
> console platform at home.
>
> However, I have seen and worked with Windows in corporate DB
> environments (with 1000+ db users) as far back as the mid 90's - and
> it does work.
>
> > In fact, Windows has tried very hard to earn my contempt.
>
> That depends on how well you know Windows, what hardware you are
> running on it, and how you configure it.

I claim not to know it well at all. But I shouldn't have to. The problem there is the people who are charged with knowing are not given the tools to really find out what any problems are. That's considered a feature, I think.

So tell me, how does one configure Win2000 with 9iAS (all three tiers)?

>
> Unfortunately too many people insist on thinking that the
> WinNT/Win2000/WinXP server platforms are just another version of
> Win95/Win98. They may know about /etc/rc.d and signal(), but know
> *nothing* about the insides of Windows... and then think they are
> compotent enough to comment on it.

How competent do you have to be to say that basic functionality like starting up and shutting down the database with the box in a reasonable amount of time cannot be made to work with Oracle? There's plenty of competent anti-windows expertise out there.

>
> > And if you
> > don't think bg intends it to take over from unix, what part of deepest
> > darkest Africa have you been living in?
>
> The arse side.

I better not ask what they put in the coffee there!  

>
> And yes, you are right that Microsoft is targeting the Unix market.
> However, Windows is *not* Unix. Period. (which is a good and bad
> thing).

I think it is another version of VMS, myself. But with a front end, support infrastructure, and general corporate attitude that masks the good thing that that could be.

>
> But thinking that Windows cannot deliver or do the job is nothing but
> a myth. I have many a war story about Windows coming through (as I do
> have about Unix).
>
> E.g. Many years ago we had a problem with a Gupta database running in
> OS/2. We had to do a re-org of the db, but this ran for 24+ hours and
> then crashed.
>
> Solution. I installed and configured Gupta to run in the WinNT 3.5
> OS/2 console subsystem. Copied the database across. And the re-org
> took about 4 hours.

Whoopie. I've seen Unify truck on in unix environments that Oracle would look like a boiled goldfish in. I'd be much more interested in a story like yours that s/OS\/2/unix/g.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/23.01.html#subj12