Re: Advantages of Oracle on Windows over Unix

On Jan 17, 1:23 pm, "Charles Hooper" <hooperc2..._at_yahoo.com> wrote:
> gazzag wrote:
> > Inspired by this thread here,
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_...,
> > and for a bit of fun, would anyone care to extol the virtues of Oracle
> > on Windows over it running on a *nix platform? >;)
>
> > -gTough question, which is sure to provoke all kinds of insightful
> comments on both sides of the fence.
>
> I administer Oracle on Windows. Why, other than the fact that it
> works?
> * For IT staff members that cover many disciplines, operating Oracle on
> Windows is easier than doing the same on Linux and Unix, since the
> server looks much like all the other servers in the rack, is vulnerable
> to many of the same attack vectors as other servers in the rack, and
> can be administered using the same tools and commands as the other
> servers in the rack.

>From a cygwin bash shell against an sshd, both the MS Win and RHEL
Linux Oracle database servers look the same.

> * Ctrl - Alt - Delete does not reboot the server, while on Linux, by
> default, this action causes an immediate reboot. For someone working
> in a mixed operating system environment, who is unaware how to change
> the default behavior, this can be a costly and/or time consuming
> lesson.

not with RHEL.

> * Oracle related log files and existence of backups can be checked from
> IT staff members' Windows computers with little effort.

Or checked from the dba's mail inbox.

> * Typically, a lower cost entry point, although total cost of ownership
> can be debated.

Same hardware, similar OS fees for "Enterprise Linux".

> * Use of threads rather than processes, meaning one executable running
> on the server for the Oracle instance. This could be argued positive
> or negative.
> * Server hardware can be single sourced from Dell (or some other
> vendor) - if your company has an exclusive contract for computers
> through a vendor, this can help reduce total cost of ownership.

Dell has resold RHEL for quite some time, as has HP.

> * Provides the capability of running Oracle and SQLServer on the same
> computer. I would not recommend this, but it is possible for those
> non-platform independent applications.
> * A GUI is always present - there is no performance penalty for
> starting up the GUI, but then there is no way to disable the GUI to
> improve performance.
> * Support for asynchronous IO out of the box.

This has been a non-issue for quite some time with RHEL.

> * Same virus scanner software used to protect the others servers in the
> IT rack can be used to protect the database server. This allows a
> single management console for the virus scanning software.

Don't enable a Samba dæmon - don't need an anti-virus scanner. I have experienced first-hand where AV software gone wrong has nuked Oracle database server software binaries on win32.

> * Windows administrators have the opportunity to experience bugs
> introduced by Oracle patches before the bugs are experienced by users
> on other platforms. Microsoft's Windows Update site has helped promote
> the concept of active, immediate patching for Windows administrators.
> Case in point: take a look at bug ID 5752147 on Metalink that affects
> Oracle 10.2.0.3 on Red Hat Linux. The same bug was reported to Oracle
> on November 24, 2006 on the Windows platform (bug IDs 5680308, 5741417,
> 5708361, 5761998). I submitted an SR to Oracle related to the same
> problem on November 28, 2006, which was closed without resolution.

In my experience, turn-around time for fixes seems to me to have been longer for win than lin.

> There are at least an equal number of reasons why one should use a
> Linux/Unix platform rather than Windows. Is it worth the effort to
> bash one platform or the other?

no, but it seems worth it to me to refute individual points. I'm not claiming that either is better.
At least with 10.2, Oracle on MS windows is giving decent trace files for ora-7445 issues.

-bdbafh

> Charles Hooper
> PC Support Specialist
> K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
Received on Wed Jan 17 2007 - 12:46:22 CST