Re: Sparc Mhz vs. Intel Mhz for Oracle

What's windows?

Suse or RedHat.
We are CPU bound, that's why I am concerned. I know it's not an apples-to-applies comparison, hence asking if anyone has done it :).

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 19:30:01 GMT, Brian Peasland <dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com> wrote:

>What OS do you plan on running on this Intel box? That makes a huge
>difference. Windows needs more CPU cycles just to stay alive than
>Solaris on Intel or Linux. So that should enter your picture. You should
>also take a look at your current CPU usage on your Sparc server. Are you
>cpu-bound? If not, you might be able to scale back on the CPUs for your
>newer server. Or you may need more processing power. In the end, it's
>not always and apples-to-apples comparison.
>
>HTH,
>Brian
>
>NetComrade wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Has anyone ever swapped a Sun system, for same or similar Intel Linux
>> system in terms of same Mhz. I know more CPU's is better, but we are
>> looking to downgrade to fewer CPU's on Intel from Sun. How big is the
>> cache effect? (e.g. Sun Sparc 400Mhz w/8Meg cache vs. Intel Xeon MP
>> w/ 2MB cache) Are there any white papers on the subject out there?
>>
>> Thanks.
>> .......
>> We use Oracle 8.1.7.4 on Solaris 2.7 boxes
>> remove NSPAM to email
>
>--
>===================================================================
>
>Brian Peasland
>dba_at_remove_spam.peasland.com
>
>Remove the "remove_spam." from the email address to email me.
>
>
>"I can give it to you cheap, quick, and good. Now pick two out of
> the three"

.......
We use Oracle 8.1.7.4 on Solaris 2.7 boxes remove NSPAM to email Received on Tue Dec 02 2003 - 14:08:55 CST