FITTING ENTIRE DATABA

T2>In article <3185.1599.uupcb#factory.com> jared.hecker_at_factory.com (Jared Hecker) writes:
>
>HY>Has anyone tried an Oracle setup with, say, 128MB of RAM? This to me
 ...
>Henry, Oracle will eat up that memory and love every minute of it. Essentially
 ...
>Considering how ^*(+_! slow the RS/6000 disk subsystem is, I applaud your
>friend's thinking. It will pay off big time inperformance.

T2>I'm amazed and surprised!  We recently conducted some rather extensive
T2>benchmarks using Oracle in a GIS application.  RS6000, *in our application*, 
T2>was about twice the performance of another popular UNIX box.  We actually
T2>chose the RS6000 because of its disk performance (model 370's).

Ah, dragging my name through net-mud; how inglorious! Terry, I assume the box comparison was an apples-to-apples one, you had an Oracle-knowledgeable and a box-knowledgeable person(s) tune each box, the disk technology was the same, etc. That being the case, the only Unix box (i.e., not a PC running Unix) I am aware of slower than an RS/6000 is of the Mips R3000 variety (like the ones that run Ultrix :) ). The Power PC is a nice chip; I hope IBM builds a nice box around it some day. One suspects your GIS application to be CPU rather than disk intensive.

I am curious as to whether the DG AvIIon was in the mix. I have used Oracle on RS/6000's, HP 9000's, Sequents, Pyramids, numerous PC's running SCO, Suns, DEC's and DG's; in the small-intermediate range - say a 2 to 4-processor SMP box with 64-256MB of RAM - I'd put my money on DG every time. Those boys built a nifty little box.

jh

---
. MR/2 1.39x NR . OS/2'ing it 'til NT wipes it out...