Re: Sun vs. Intel

Hi all,

I think that NT and also W2k is probably not able to do the job if it is necessary to have
up to 400 shadow processes/threads. The reason is, that AFAIK, a process on Windows can
only have 65536 open Handles. If your database has 400 shadow threads (on Windows the
shadow processes are implemented as threads), your database should not have much more than
160 files. This statement is not valid if each shadow thread do not need to open all the files.
But I would not count on that.

From the stability point of view I wouldn't see a problem on W2k due to the OS. It depends on
your hardware. Probably Windows hardware is not as stable as HA high end UNIX hardware
could be, but it always depends on your companies availability requirements of the system.
If necessary you could also implement Oracle on a W2k cluster.

If you don't need the dedicated processes for your database connections or you have much less
than 160 files and your business is not to critical, you could save a lot of money if you choose W2k,
but if not, you better stay with your Solaris hardware.

Regards
Ralph

"TurkBear" <john.greco_at_dot.state.mn.us> wrote in message news:90vstugflslbidghiha66ki9eao4a0sals_at_4ax.com...
> Sybrand is usually right, if a little doctrinaire, but both the OP and he
seem to be stuck in NT world..
> The W2K Advanced Server is much more stable and crash-resistant than any
previous Windows offering ( the vote is still out on
> XP Pro and its server options) - It may not be as scalable as a good UNIX
box, but, with Multi-processor support and
> connected to a well managed SAN, it should be able to handle your tasks...
>
>
>
> Sybrand Bakker <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:42:51 -0500, Gary Delong <gdelong_at_SEE-SIG.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Don't want to start a war, but management here read the
> >>recent Business Week article about using Dell servers
> >>to replace Sun servers and saving "Big Bucks". As the
> >>Unix admin, I've been asked to comment, but lack any
> >>real feel for the Oracle on Intel environment.
> >>
> >>We currently have Oracle 8i running on a 6 CPU E3500
> >>w/Solaris 8 and a database of about 80GB. It serves a
> >>couple of frontend NT boxes and often sees 300 to 400
> >>oracle processes.
> >>
> >>Since I'm a Unix/Sun guy, I'm obviously a little biased,
> >>but willing to listen anyone who can expound on the pros
> >>and cons of making this type of move.
> >>
> >>I appreceate your thoughts.
> >>
> >>Thanks much,
> >>--Gary
> >>
> >>email gdelong at conversent dot com
> >
> >
> >NT is by design less scalable than any Unix implementation, and
> >definitely crashes more often. Also, if you search the newsgroup
> >archives you should be capable to find several tests which demonstrate
> >Solaris is faster.
> >As to the size of the databases and the number of processes: I don't
> >think any NT config will be capable to manage this, the person
> >premeditating this move seems to be willing to bring the company in
> >Chapter 12 state.
> >If management decides to proceed, make sure you have a different job
> >before the NT implementation goes live, or you won't survive it.
> >
> >Regards
> >
> >
> >Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
> >
> >To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
>
Received on Fri Nov 22 2002 - 14:04:35 CST