Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle8 on Linux ok?

Re: Oracle8 on Linux ok?

From: Jared Hecker <jared_at_pandora.planet.net>
Date: 13 Apr 1999 12:40:53 GMT
Message-ID: <7eve0l$ln@jupiter.planet.net>


I have run Oracle on NT for a number of years, and Oracle on Linux since one had to 'borrow' SCO binaries.

Performance-wise, Linux vs. NT on a uniprocessor system is noticeably faster and supports more users on identical configurations. My Linux server at work (a spare IBM Intellistation I-Pro w/ 64MB of RAM and a 266-MHz PII) has not crashed since I set it up last November. Please note, I haven't had time to try the 2.2.5 kernel on an SMP box and compare. I would not use Linux on SMP for at least another year - let the pioneers take the arrows, unless you have a significant business need you cannot otherwise meet.

Equally important in a corporate environment are the ancillary pieces - backup software, job schedulers, performance monitor et al. When I set up my server I researched and found that while I could use my firm's standard backup software (ADSM) and db monitor tool (Patrol), there was no client for the standard job scheduler (Maestro). Since I was doing a proof of concept (to eliminate NT as an Oracle server, as a matter of fact) I decided it wasn't an issue. In production it would be (btw, Tivoli will be bringing out a Red Hat Maestro agent/client this year).

If your firm is comfortable managing Unix, I would say 95% of the pieces are there. Is the superior price-performance ratio of Linux enough to indicate its use vs. NT? It all depends on your corporate culture and skills repository.

hth (did) -

Regards,
jh

Søren Klintrup (bigchief_at_aub.dk) wrote:

: George Dau <gedau_at_isa.mim.com.au> wrote in message
: news:37136a1d.71500281_at_158.54.6.109...
: > "Søren Klintrup" <bigchief_at_aub.dk> wrote:
: >
: > ]I've seen many Linux systems crash ... more than NT in fact ... - not
: that
: > ]is says anything .. just my personal experience ...
: >
: > I've seen many systems of all types crash, from my lawnmower to a Unisys
: > 2200/400 mainframe. I'd be very interested in details of the above though.
: How
: > long do your NT boxes stay up for? (The ones with Oracle on them).

: I am a newly started Oracle DBA, so my Oracle box havn't been up for more
: than 20 days in a row, but then again .. it never crashed, i rebooted the
: machine for an upgrade of a driver..

: But I have had an NT Server wich has been running for 1½ year without ever
: being rebooted nor crashed wich i may say is quite impressive .. - the final
: steps of the box was to tear it apart for an upgrade, and in the same "step"
: reinstalling the OS (for the SMP functionality), it CAN be done with
: uptosmp, but i didn't want to try .. :)

: I've been Working with several NT Servers, I havn't seen NT Crash unless it
: was faulty hardware, and if it is faulty hardware, well ... it's not NT to
: blame ..

: I'm not the type of person who will only use one OS and then defend it by
: all means ... I think that most of the Anti-MS Hype out there is based on
: Windows 9x, wich ain't a bussiness OS, and people tend to try to compare it
: with linux and others ... 9x and NT is two different worlds the only thing
: alike is the look and feel of the GUI (roughly speaking) ...

: I've been using FreeBSD for the past year, and is quite impressed with the
: stability, performance and easy of use of FreeBSD, not as a Desktop OS, but
: as a Server OS .. no X, no fancy stuff ... just a hardcore rockstable OS ...
: I have actually never had a FreeBSD box that crashed (ok .. one .. but it
: ran on a faulty Cyrix processor (ain't they all :) .. crashed after 5
: minutes of running time .. replaced the CPU .. and it started running stable
: .. :)

: I started on using Linux 1½ year ago, but wasn't impressed, I don't want to
: go looking for kernel-patch after kernel-patch after kernel-patch to make
: simple tings work... it might be that it's only in this first years of the
: OS that it's gonna be like that ... but why settle for less, don't get me
: wrong .. RedHAT is the easiest of the FreeBSD/Linux to install and setup,
: but I'm not looking for another Windows ... already got that ..

: That should be all from here

: Søren Klintrup
: Network Administrator
: Post Danmark Mailhouse

--

Jared Hecker	| HWA Inc. - Oracle architecture and Administration
jared_at_hwai.com	|  ** serving NYC and New Jersey **
Received on Tue Apr 13 1999 - 07:40:53 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US