Re: Running Oracle 805 on Linux

Hi RN,

    Thanks for your helpful message. I apologize if I gave that impression, but no I was not going to run my database on a $500 E-Machine :-) I was only going to use them with the load balancer, since load balancers today allow one to get away with using dirt cheap (and hence somewhat unreliable) hardware. However, if e-machines are as crappy as you say -- I've only seen them in demo/training labs, where they don't get beat on as much -- I'm going to be stay away from 'em.

    But I'm probably going to go with a dual Xeon + Linux for my database engine, for now, until cash flows get better.

Regards,
KSC R. Nightingale wrote in message ...
>
><kodava_at_pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:ilEE3.407$sE.33800_at_typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net...
>> Hi all,
>> I've been charted to design a web site..Like most web sites, it will
>> have a bunch of web servers fronting some application servers and one
>> database (Oracle) server.
>
>That's a good idea. You HTTP server could be servicing a lot of
>traffic--causing undue response interference with your Oracle application.
>
>> Now I would like to have 3 or 4 e-machines Celeron
>> systems running Linux as my web servers, feeding into a load balancing
>> switch such as a Foundry ServerIron or an Alteon AceDirector.
>
>My sister has an e-machine desktop. What an unrealiable piece of crap.
 The
>running joke is not being able to turn off the "autoboot" feature. For not
>a whole lot more, you could get a Dell or a Gateway. At least they have
>human beings on the tech support line.
>
>> On the back
>> end, I would like to stay with Linux as far as possible -- I will be
 having
>> things like chat servers and mail servers, and I cannot see why Linux
 won't
>> work here.
>>
>> The thing that's keeping me up at nights though is Oracle. I'd really
>> like to run it on Linux, but I don't know how strong Oracle's committment
 is
>> to Linux. For that matter, I do not know if Linux can scale to running a
>> gigantic database server -- we're very small right now but expect to grow
>> rapidly (obviously ;) I expect the database to be up in the
>> multi-hundred-gigabyte range in the next few months. This isn't going to
 be
>> one of those inactive database servers, folks are going to be inserting,
>> deleting, and updating records all the time. Its come down to Linux/Intel
>> because its cost effective (we're tight on $$$) vs Solaris/Sparc because
>> Sun/Oracle have such a tight relationship. I'm equally familiar w/ Linux
 and
>> Solaris BTW. I'd like to stay w/ RedHat 5.2, since its a release behind.
>>
>
>I regularly consult with companies that have 10s of GB of data on Oracle.
>Most of my Oracle work is on AIX, HPUX, and WindowsNT. You might get away
>in the short-run using Linux on cheap PCs, but look forward to some heavy
>iron when you get serious. Silicon Graphics is supporting Linux on their
>1400L server. Compaq is discountinuing WindowsNT development on their
 Alpha
>servers in favor of OpenVMS, Unix and Linux. Sun is even introducing
>something called Hot Desk that has NO operating system. You can find out
>"what's shipping" in each OS/Hardware combination at the supported
 platforms
>site (http://platforms.oracle.com/linux).
>
>What's nice about Oracle is that if you do change your mind about the
>hardware or the OS, you can migrate your database to the new server fairly
>painlessly.
>
>Once you get above 40 GB, you are going to want systems that have multiple
>processors and fast data channels. You are going to want some reliable
>hardware. The only thing I've seen on the e-machines web site
>(http://www.emachines.com/) was a page of directions on how to ship the
>machines back to the factory.
>
>-rn
>
>
Received on Wed Sep 22 1999 - 00:00:00 CEST