Re: Oracle On Compaq Server

From: Frank van Bortel <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 21:38:24 +0100
Message-ID: <c206ss$lek$1@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>

Niall Litchfield wrote:

> "Syltrem" <syltremzulu_at_videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:eLI%b.329$Xy3.938_at_tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
>

>>"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> a écrit dans le

>
> message
>

>>de news:403e6f69$0$49$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
>>
>>>"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
>>>news:1077814602.488439_at_yasure...
>>>
>>>>We're talking Oracle here not MS Word. Do you really want your
>>>>production database running on a platform where at least once a
>>>>week you are instructed to apply a security patch and reboot?
>>>
>>>I have no problem with running production databases on Windows.

>
> scheduling
>

>>>maintenance windows is perfectly fine by me.
>>>
>>
>>
>>It's funny how people are willing to spend time rebooting windows and
>>installing patches, sometimes a couple' times per week. And this is seen

>
> at
>

>>"normal" maintenance.
>>I'm pretty sure the same people wouldn't accept to go to the mechanic to

>
> fix
>

>>their car (or TV, or VCR...) that often. Most sure of this indeed.
>>
>>I have Windows 2000 Pro at home. In the last 52 weeks, it crashed 21 times
>>(maybe 2 of them were because of power failures) and the average uptime is

>
> a
>

>>little more than 3 days. Longest uptime is 21 days (after which I had to
>>reboot due to numerous stupid problems I was starting to get). And I

>
> *don't*
>

>>play games, install strange software, or anything considered "risky".
>>Strictly terminal emulation, Internet, MS-Office and burning music CDs.
>>There's no way I would run a business on such a flimsy OS.
>>In the office its the same (Win XP) but I don't collect stats here.

>
>
> I collected some stats for oracle-l when a similar argument was made
> recently. For the last 3 months (the period for which I had stats) for our 4
> business critical systems
> System 1 Availability: 99.9945%
> System 2 Availability: 99.9816%
> System 3 Availability: 99.9926%
> System 4 Availability: 100.0000% (but missing a patch or two for other
> reasons.)
> Gotta like the 4 decimal places uptime.exe reports...
>
> This isn't intended as a my systems are better than yours diatribe, just an
> indicator that windows systems can be perfectly available and reliable. I'd
> be prepared to bet that for at least the first year in a *nix environment
> competent windows sysadmins would produce systems with worse availability
> stats than their old windows boxes and vice versa.
>
>
>
>

I bet you "behave" on your Windows systems. And with that, I mean you install the OS, possibly take out what you don't need (Outlook, IIS, anyone?), install and run Oracle.

No more, no less. No PDC and Exchange, too, no fileserver, anything of that.

-- 

Regards,
Frank van Bortel

Received on Mon Mar 01 2004 - 14:38:24 CST