Re: Hardware Recommendations for new Oracle Server

"Billy Verreynne" <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za> wrote in message news:9kde2a$8tm$1_at_ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> "Colin McKinnon" <colin_at_EditMeOutUnlessYoureABot.wew.co.uk> wrote
>
> One never blame the paintbrush for poor artwork. It is the artist who does
 the
> painting. IMO it is the same when using NT or Unix, or Oracle or
 Informix.. the
> reliability of the system, the ability to meet the business demands,
 depends on
> how well we wield these tools and very seldom on the tools itself.
 Granted, a
> sculptor will not use a paintbrush to chip away at a granite block. So you
 need
> to use the right tools. But that does not mean that Unix is the only tool
 that
> can deliver.. or Oracle is the only database that can do the job.
>

However, UNIX boxes are easy to configure. There is generally a set of text files one (or more) per component. Application software is largely separate from the OS. Applications do not overwrite each other on install. Applications do not overwrite OS files. The problem with NT is that there is no configuration control. Applications you do not want on a server (eg Internet explorer) are mandatory for other software installs, for no good reason. Given a set of applications to install, the sequence of installs has to be exactly right and this isn't documented. The result is a very high risk of spontaneous lock-ups and crashes which are very hard to isolate to any particular component or even to decide between hardware and software faults.

Partly, of course, it's because traditionally you had to manually configure a UNIX server when setting it up, so you got to know where everything was. Received on Fri Aug 03 2001 - 04:48:36 CDT