Re: Solaris Hardware

From: Mark Bole <makbo_at_pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 03:48:21 GMT
Message-ID: <9mWYb.27515$8R1.2969@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>

Rick Denoire wrote:

> Hans Forbrich <hforbric_at_yahoo.net> wrote:

>

>>equipment you could get off EBay.  I happen to like Sun E250s and E450s;
>>they are a decent Oracle workhorse, accept a fair chunk of memory and
>>have decent disk subsystem support. 

>
> So you "like" this obsolete, completely nonconpetitive equipment? The
> hardware you mentioned belongs to a museum.
>
>

>>Then again my suggestion would be to consider upgrading - get Oracle9i
>>on a Linux box (partially 'cause I'm a Linux believer lately).

>
>
> May be because it runs on faster Intel hardware mostly??
>
> Bye
> Rick Denoire
>

"faster on intel"? I'm puzzling over that one. I heard a developer claim "Intel has always been way faster than SPARC" as a CPU... I guess he was born sometime after 1993 and hasn't heard of CISC and RISC (I always liked the characterization of CISC as a "code museum" -- with Intel's latest concession to AMD as far as putting 64-bit capability on the Pentium line, this seems to be an on-going concern).

I'm in the middle of Solaris to Linux migration... my gut feeling, so far without hard data to back it up, is that the ext2 / ext3 filesystem on Linux is WAY faster than the default ufs filesystem on Solaris 8. (It does journaling, after all, no?) This seems to account for much of the perceived speed-up (as in, "boy, I can import that data 3 times faster on my Linux workstation than I can on the Solaris server" -typically ignoring other factors such as RAID).

Any other observations in this regard, one way or the other?

--Mark Bole Received on Wed Feb 18 2004 - 21:48:21 CST