Re: Oracle on PC

I didn't know NT was that reliable ! I've been lucky to see less than 3 NT 4.0 crashes in as many months.

Dominic Baines

jeb wrote:

> ONLY 3 instance crashes in a year, I'm sold...
>
> David Sisk wrote:
> >
> > We have about a 15 Gb database on a quad pentium pro200 box with about
> > 900
> > Mb of memory (400 Mb allocated to the SGA) and 8 independent RAID5
> > disk
> > arrays connected to 4 2-channel SCSI RAID adapters. We get pretty
> > darned
> > good performance. Of course, for the $75K we spent on this box, we
> > could've
> > bought a Sun box half the size and twice as fast, but my employer is
> > hell-bent on migrating to nothing but NT, so there ya go. It has
> > actually
> > been very stable. We've had maybe 3 instance crashes in the last
> > year. It
> > is primary used for data mart type applications. This is just my
> > opinion,
> > but if I were you, I'd be pretty happy to go with either Sun or HP.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Dave
> >
> > Howard Joffe wrote in message <6g1b7a$ar0$1_at_rcp6.elan.af.mil>...
> > >Is there anyone who is running Oracle on a PC server handling very
> > large
> > >databases (> 1GB)? If so are you satisfied with the performance? At
> > the
> > >moment the consensus is to use a SUN server. I am not convinced we
> > need
> > all
> > >that firepower.
> > >
> > >Thank you,
> > >Howard Joffe
> > >joffeh%b1_at_mhs.elan.af.mil
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> EMail: jeb_at_fayettevillenc.com
> Alternate: jbringolf_at_grci.com
> Web: www.fayettevillenc.infi.net/~jeb
Received on Thu Apr 09 1998 - 09:40:15 CDT