Re: Oracle on NT...Why Not?

Jim Kennedy wrote:
>
> In article <4i1l7g$jqf_at_tin.monsanto.com> mecoru_at_ccmail.monsanto.com (Michael E Corum) writes:
> >Path: nntp.teleport.com!news.reed.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.nevada.edu!news.tam
> >From: mecoru_at_ccmail.monsanto.com (Michael E Corum)
> >Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle
> >Subject: Re: Oracle on NT...Why Not?
> >Date: 11 Mar 1996 16:43:28 GMT
> >Organization: Monsanto Co
> >Lines: 51
> >Distribution: world
> >Message-ID: <4i1l7g$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.
 

> >Flames will be ignored.
 

> >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)
>
> Interesting artical in the March 26th issue of PC Mag. The artical about
> departmental servers. PC Mag used two NOSs to perfom throughput tests.
> Netware 3.12 and NT 3.51 (service pack 2). Amazing how file throughput on
> Netware was double that of NT once you got above 28 clients. I suspect that
> that difference might show up on running an RDBMS on the two platfforms.
>
> Granted Netware does not have sexy graphics, but it is efficient.
> Would it be faster than the aformentioned high performance machines (T-500 or
> a DEC Alpha); no way. My experience has been that running Oracle under
> Netware vs NT on the same hardware is that Oracle under Netware will easily
> outperform Oracle under NT.
>
> Jim Kennedy
I understand that ORACLE under NT runs as a single process, with threading within the process. Does that allow you to take advantage of a multi-processor?

Any info would be appreciated as we are looking at ORACLE on NT for development work.

-- 
Rob Allan                       |  rob.e.allan_at_hydro.on.ca
Ontario Hydro                   |  Tel. (416) 592 4195
Toronto, Ontario, Canada        |  Fax  (416) 592 4966