Re: Running Instances on Windoz

joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote

> 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.

Agree fully. Security is an issue. A Windows out-of-the-box installation is not secure and needs to be hardened.

Back in the 90's one of my colleagues went on about NT's C2 security certification and what not. I hacked his NT box in about five minutes (using a SQL*Server 4.5 backdoor) and took over his NT sysadmin account. He was not impressed with either me or Microsoft. :-)

The real problem is that security is Microsoft development and architecture was not a core consideration back then. Now they are attempting to make it one.. a tad too late in many respects I would think.

> > 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.

IMO one of the issues is the perception that because you have all the GUI tools on Windows (and there's a plethora of them), you do not need to know *what* those tools exactly do and *how*.

IOW, these GUI tools turn Mr Sysadm/DBA into an ignoramus. On Unix, the effect is usually the opposite due to the lack of GUI tools.

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

The same as on Unix/Linux... with difficulty. Hell, I did manage (after a while) to get 9iAS working on vanilla RedHat 9 after borrowing from SO's from 9i Enterprise Server... :-)

> 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.

As I said Joel, Windows is not Unix. And it only requires a few minutes of reading the Win32 API specs (the Microsoft version of Unix man pages IMO) to understand how services work and what the requirements are.

BTW, it is much easier to configure Oracle startup/shutdown for a Windows box than a Unix box in my experience. The only downside on the Windows platform is the lack of scripting like we have with Unix...

> > > 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!

Hehehe... The country on the arse side of Africa, i.e. down under in the south, is South Africa. And down here we do put milk and sugar in coffee.. ;-)

> 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.

Tend to agree with that. If anything, Microsoft made NT look too much like Windows 3.1 IMO. And from there the perception grew that NT is indeed like Windows 3.1.

Not that I'm a die-hard Windows NT/2000/XP fan. If anything my favourite o/s still is Siemens' BS2000.. but then that's probably just nostalgia.. ;-)

> 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.

Well, never tried NT's POSIX subsystem. Have however done some good stuff using the BS2000 POSIX subsystem. :-)

I think the real question you are asking is if Oracle and Windows are suited for a good and stable marriage in the corporate environment?

Cannot really give an opinion on that.. except to say that Unix and Oracle in my experience is a techie match in heaven.

However that does not say that Windows cannot do the job when it comes to that type of environment. Besides, the deciding factor about what technology to use is not which one results in us wearing the kewlest Raybans, but which one fits the business environment, requirements and strategy the best.

Our job is to make it work and work well. I'm sure that like all techies you also thrive on challenges like that. :-)

--
Billy