Re: FITTING ENTIRE DATABASE
From: <martin_at_elmrd6.ineab.ikea.se>
Date: 7 Jun 93 11:24:36 +0200
Message-ID: <1993Jun7.112437.81_at_elmrd6.ineab.ikea.se>
>
>
> I'm amazed and surprised! We recently conducted some rather extensive
> benchmarks using Oracle in a GIS application. RS6000, *in our application*,
> was about twice the performance of another popular UNIX box. We actually
> chose the RS6000 because of its disk performance (model 370's).
>
> - Terry Ingoldsby
> ingoldsb_at_cuug.ab.ca
>
>
Received on Mon Jun 07 1993 - 11:24:36 CEST
Date: 7 Jun 93 11:24:36 +0200
Message-ID: <1993Jun7.112437.81_at_elmrd6.ineab.ikea.se>
In article <C78x1D.L09_at_cuug.ab.ca>, ingoldsb_at_cuug.ab.ca (Terry Ingoldsby 268-8821) writes:
> In article <3185.1599.uupcb_at_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.
>
>
> I'm amazed and surprised! We recently conducted some rather extensive
> benchmarks using Oracle in a GIS application. RS6000, *in our application*,
> was about twice the performance of another popular UNIX box. We actually
> chose the RS6000 because of its disk performance (model 370's).
>
> - Terry Ingoldsby
> ingoldsb_at_cuug.ab.ca
>
>
Received on Mon Jun 07 1993 - 11:24:36 CEST