Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: switch from file system to raw device

Re: switch from file system to raw device

From: Igor <igor.news_at_merkudelete.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:46:53 +0200
Message-ID: <pan.2004.09.16.12.46.52.851925@merkudelete.org>


On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:16:21 +0200, Anton Dischner wrote:

Hello Anton,

>> As I said before, some statements (or decisions) sometimes are political
>> choices. In our case, we have in particular two systems, billing and SAP,
>> that -your are right, are running on unsupported platforms- are not to be
>> changed at this moment. 

>
> Don't change a running system. ;-)
> And really don't do it.
> A "maybe with raw it's faster" will get you into deep trouble if it
> make problems, and it -will- make problems, at least downtime.
I might not have been clear in describing WHY I want to know more about this, but in fact I won't touch a running system, not in the way one can initially understand it. Let me explain better: My company has acquired another company and thinks about concentrating dbs and applications on our machines to eliminate machines on their side to save money from technical support contract. They have db on file system and when we transport it onto our site (after two or three test rounds) I thought to take the chance and put it onto raw device. All our dbs are on raw device, so why should I have one on file system (yeah, to make comparisons ...)?

> It took us 10 years of experience and my conclusion is:
> Linux is as good or as bad as any other Unix. (HPUX, AIX, Irix, Tru64,
> you name it)

I guess you are right.

>> And, sorry, I just don't get the point about cheaper (faster maybe, but
>> cheaper)? 

> You might agree: a real cheap 3.x GHz box with plenty of RAM and
> harddisk is as much as you pay for a new disk for your RS6000.
Yeah, for the hardware I agree. But you have to have someone to ask if something does not work, right? That's what support contracts are for, right? And, as I said in another post, IBM (or other big ones) might not be all brilliant but at least have large issue dbs and many people and resources. One of them, at least one of them, might have had the same problem already, right? AND, you have someone to blame ... ;-)
>> The Intel costs something, 
>> the SLES for professional,

> No its free. Only the support costs money.
No, it's not free at last. Support costs $$$, probably less than IBM, but I guess there will be less in return ... If my IBM does not run because of bug xyz or problem I suppose in one, two, three days there will be at least a workaround. With SLES? How many days of billing will fade away, how many new contracts lost before SLES comes out with at least a workaround?

> whatever you do: have fun,

I sure try!

Thanks a lot and have a nice day,
Igor Received on Thu Sep 16 2004 - 07:46:53 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US