Re: Oracle on NT: DEC Alpha or Compaq Proliant???

In article <819246572.13019_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk> jim_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk (Jim Smith) writes:
>Path: nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!newsrelay.netins.net!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!chi-news.cic.net!uwm.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!oleane!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!demon!jimsmith.demon.co.uk
>From: jim_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk (Jim Smith)
>Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle
>Subject: Re: Oracle on NT: DEC Alpha or Compaq Proliant???
>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 00:29:17 GMT
>Organization: Home
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <819246572.13019_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk>
>References: <4as633$14jc_at_news.ccit.arizona.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: jimsmith.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: jimsmith.demon.co.uk
>X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55

>misioror_at_GAS.UUG.Arizona.EDU (Ronald L Misiorowski) wrote:
 

>>Anybody got any opinions/war stories on running Oracle Workgroup
>>on a Proliant 1500 133MHz vs. Alpha 2000 275MHz under NTAS 3.51?
 

>>Our database is expected to be about 3.5 GB, used 90% for queries,
>>supporting 10-20 users.
 

>>The quotes I'm getting show the Alpha about $7,500 more than the Proliant,
>>with similar configurations. Is the price worth it? My feeling is that
>>since my application will be I/O bound, I'd be better off spending the $$
>>on more memory or faster disks. Any comments??
 

>>TIA...
>>
 

>Last I heard, (admittedly some time ago) Oracle only supported NT on
>Intel platforms, not Alpha or MIPS. HAs this changed?
 

>Jim Smith jim_at_jimsmith.demon.co.uk
>Oracle DBA

I think it runs on Alpha's but under DEC's version of UNIX not NT. Jim Kennedy Received on Mon Dec 18 1995 - 00:00:00 CET