Re: HP or Sun for Oracle

In article <381jv9$juu_at_dcsun4.us.oracle.com> jhealy_at_oracle.com (Jim Healy) writes:
>From: jhealy_at_oracle.com (Jim Healy)
>Subject: Re: HP or Sun for Oracle
>Date: 18 Oct 1994 22:58:49 GMT
 

>In article <781852584snz_at_sambusys.demon.co.uk>, psb@sambusys.demon.co.uk (Paul Beardsell) writes:
>> In article <89B7503.03890015A3.uuout_at_compudata.com>
>> barry.roomberg_at_compudata.com "BARRY ROOMBERG" writes:
>>
>> > -> I don't believe it. Quote from your source. I imagine the doc you
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Will an Oracle employee comment?
 

>Sure, I'd be happy to comment since this thread is beginning to annoy me
>somewhat.
 

>Sun and Oracle have indeed exchanged source code for joint engineering
>purposes, not marketing hype. I should know since I've had the
>opportunity to examine a fair amount of Solaris source and SunSoft
>product source.
 

>There's a ton of reasons why this is mutually beneficial to both
>companies. Performance tuning. Bug finding and fixing. Testing.
>Faster product cycles. Future hardware and software development.
 

>Performance tuning in particular is a very complicated process which
>takes into account much more than just POSIX calls or reading/writing
>bytes to the OS. Any vendor that restricts its tuning efforts to only
>these areas will be out of business pretty quickly.
 

>I don't know whether HP or Sequent also have Oracle source since I don't
>work directly with those vendors. But I can tell you that the
>engineering staffs at Oracle and Sun strongly favored the source code
>exchange. It just made our jobs a whole lot easier to do.

I have worked with the DG folks and they have had access to the Oracle source in the past for benchmarking purposes. I suspect lots of equipment vendors have at one time or another had some Oracle source.

>Jim Healy
>Senior Technical Staff
>Sun Products Divison
>Oracle Corporation
Received on Thu Oct 20 1994 - 18:48:17 CET