Re: Oracle Installation Experiences

In article <CxFuJx.D6J_at_world.std.com> extel_at_world.std.com (Chris eastland) writes:
>output_at_netcom.com (Output Services) writes:
>
>>In article <CxD6AG.MJJ_at_world.std.com> extel_at_world.std.com (Chris eastland) writes:
>>>output_at_netcom.com (Output Services) writes:
>>>>For a true comparison in throughput, reliability, stability, bug-freeness,
>>>>etc, set Oracle next to some big iron systems. We ran the same VSE
>>>>software for six years without discovering one bug.
>>>
>>>What kind of software did you run?
 

>>Don't remeber the versions, but we were running VSE (pre ESA), CICS,
>>POWER, VSAM, and ICCF. All but POWER and ICCF ran thru VSAM.
>>Twas super stable.
>
> VSAM is basically an indexed sequential file system as I remember correctly
>from my Big Blue days. CICS had not a few bugs which people had found
>workarounds to. And of course all this goes back to buffered terminals.
>Perhaps you should be comparing apples to apples.
>

Your are correct in that VSAM was (is?) not a SQL-class system. My original point was only that it was stable. My (admittedly) limited knowledge of DBMS stuff is that the availability and recoverability mainly takes place in the code where the data meets the media. If this is correct, then this is at least sort-of a fair comparison (VSAM & Oracle).

You are also correct in that 370 class machines (mainframes) had an ungodly amount of hardware support for system functions. In this regard, no, it wasn't a fair comparison.

My gig was mainly as a batch programmer. I wrote only a couple dozen CICS apps, so if there were obscure bugs, I very well may have missed them.

Thanx for the feedback, tho.

Marty Received on Tue Oct 11 1994 - 06:49:58 CET