Re: Oracle on NT...Why Not?
Date: 1996/03/11
Message-ID: <odysscci.623.0001A9DB_at_teleport.com>
In article <4i1l7g$jqf_at_tin.monsanto.com> mecoru_at_ccmail.monsanto.com (Michael E Corum) writes:
>Path: nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.nevada.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!news.dra.com!news.mid.net!tin.monsanto.com!usene
>From: mecoru_at_ccmail.monsanto.com (Michael E Corum)
>Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle
>Subject: Re: Oracle on NT...Why Not?
>Date: 11 Mar 1996 16:43:28 GMT
>Organization: Monsanto Co
>Lines: 51
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <4i1l7g$jqf_at_tin.monsanto.com>
>References: <4hoqm8$glk_at_sun630.bentley.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: mecoru1.monsanto.com
>X-Newsreader: News for Windows NT X1.0-74
>In article <4hoqm8$glk_at_sun630.bentley.com>
>Sybrand Bakker <Sybrand.Bakker_at_Bentley.nl> wrote:
>snip...
>>
>> Of course, NT is there. When it seems to run fine, occasionally it does provide
>> problems which are difficult to sort out, because they seem to be dependent on the
>> interaction between NT and Oracle (and both companies blaming each other for the bug)
>> There are several reasons why you should at least consider Unix:
>> -Although the user interface of Unix is not really user friendly, Unix itself should be
>> considered a stale, well-tested robust OS with minimal overhead (which can't be said of NT)
>> -One serious disadvantage of NT is that it has no serious batch facilities that can compare to Unix
>> Cron. There is a batch like facility in Oracle itself, apparently this is no serious alternative
>> for database wide maintenance jobs, like backup and reindexing.
>> -Availability of the latest version of Oracle for NT seems to be much much later compared
>> to Unix. While Oracle 7.2 was announced in the US already in July 95, the NT "port" was available in
>> January 96, and it still seems not to contain the latest version of every product.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sybrand Bakker
>> Senior IS Analyst
>> Bentley Systems Europe
>- I have found NT to be AT LEAST as robust if not more robust than UNIX when considering such platforms as SUN,
>SGI, HP, IBM RS/6000 and SCO.
>- I like the misspelling that made "stable" into "stale" - Freudian slip???
>- NT's WINAT batch facility works just fine and is certainly equal to CRON in most respects. You can buy
>batch packages for NT that go way beyond CRON for cheap.
>- Oracle recently announced that NT is becoming part of Tier 1 for ports. That means that NT will now get
>serious support from Oracle and will be among the first set of ports for any new version.
>- I see no reason to run UNIX any more except in the cases of extreme high-end needs where nothing less than an
>8-CPU T-500 or a Digital 64-bit ALPHA is needed for huge databases into the Terrabytes with many hundreds or
>thousands of users.
>I think it is interesting to see the UNIX people defend there turf. There are two types of people in computing:
>Those who get married to a technology and stick with it to the bitter end (and the end is bitter), and those who
>have flexibility to change as technology changes. The second group will sometimes run into minor trouble because
>they might move too quickly but they will never have a "bitter end".
>By the way, I still support using UNIX for the very high-end. Five years ago I still supported using IBM mainframes
>for the very high end over UNIX. It's just a matter of time before NT platforms are able to handle the very high-end.
>Mike Corum
>Technical Consulting Team
>Centers of Technical Excellence
>Monsanto Co
>(All opinions my own and have nothing to do with the company I work at)
Jim Kennedy Received on Mon Mar 11 1996 - 00:00:00 CET