Re: Linux vs. Windows performance.

Hi Michael,

I stand self-corrected :

Linux was 50% faster, not 150%.

• Kenneth Koenraadt

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:13:24 GMT, Kenneth Koenraadt wrote:

>Hi Michael,
>
>I took 2 identical hardware configurations, 2 identical 9.2 DB's with
>equally-sized SGAs on W2K and Red hat Linux 8 respectively. The 2 O/S'
>had approximately the same dedicated ressources.
>
>Then I created one million unique INSERT (which is quite
>CPU-intensive) statements (with a Perl script) and ran them agains
>each instance. Result : Linux was 150% faster than W2k.
>
>- Kenneth Koenraadt
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:25:40 -0800, Michael Rothwell
><marothwellRemoveThis_at_yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Has anyone taken an Identical Windows box and Linux box (same hardware
>>configuration) and tested Oracle performance? I'm looking for some real
>>world examples if I move from Windows 2k to linux with Oracle 9i. The
>>box currently has 2 1.8 CPUs with 4 disks and 1 G ram. OLTP system with
>>tables using about 30 G of space. About 40 - 100 concurrent users, but
>>this may double soon. Can I expect better performance from the Linux box?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>--
>>There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does
>>not want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert
>>Heinlein
>
Received on Mon Feb 23 2004 - 15:19:04 CST