Re: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:11:48 -0500
Message-ID: <5d4504221002221911m39a105a2s98fce043162638ed_at_mail.gmail.com>
I assume you mean 32 bit. We had the same thing. It worked rather well with two Win2k servers having 4gb each - no memory hocus pocus. Then we got new servers with 16gb of ram each and I could not resist. We did the VLM on 32 bit. Did my homework on it big time and it worked well but not for extended periods of time. We'd have a BSOD about every 3 weeks. Multiple TARs, more research, still more BSOD's. With an application upgrade I was able to convince the team to move the PS database on to 64 Bit Linux and have not looked back. The dang things just run.
Now we never did go down the Windows 64 bit lane so I can't get offer any feedback other than MS Patches. If your governance demands the application of MS patches then you are doomed for monthly reboots anyway.
Steve
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Goulet, Richard
<Richard.Goulet_at_parexel.com> wrote:
> Rafiq,
>
> As I'm working in one of the premier (top 10) trials companies to the
> pharma community we are moving all our databases/applications off of Windows
> for Unix based operating systems. These are validated, no problem. Windows
> has two basic problems, memory and processes. Without a start up switch
> your limited to 3GB total memory for Oracle, with the switch you can have
> another gb, but it uses memory context switches which are a performance
> killer. The second is that Oracle on Windows is multithreaded within a
> single executable where as Unix based systems have multiple processes again
> limiting capacity. Our windows based databases are a real pain in the
> shorts, they are constantly hitting that "blue screen of death" at least
> once a week. As it is after 1 June we will no longer support or validate a
> Windows database.
>
>
> Dick Goulet
> Senior Oracle DBA/NA Team Lead
> PAREXEL International
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
> On Behalf Of Mohammad Rafiq
> Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 8:50 PM
> To: Robert Freeman; oracle list
> Subject: RE: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux
>
> Robert,
>
> I don't agree that Window is evil. I seen problems with Windows NT (mostly
> memory leak related) but after handling Oracle databases on Windows 2000 or
> newer version, it is quite stable. However it depends on SA of Windows
> server how competent they are to configure and handle Windows server.
>
> I am mostly supporting Oracle databases of various versions on HP, RedHat
> Linux and Windows and did not find serious issues with Windows 2000+
> servers. Although it is not a preferred environment but due vendor
> requirements for their application (specially for pharmceutical industry
> which needs validated application/databases) we need to put Oracle databases
> on Windows 2000/2003 servers.
>
> Regards
> Rafiq
>
>
> ________________________________
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:05:10 -0800
> From: robertgfreeman_at_yahoo.com
> Subject: Oracle RAC on Win vs. Oracle on Linux
> To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
>
> Anyone want to jump in on their preferred platform for RAC? Personally I
> tend to lean towards Linux for stability purposes, but I'd like your
> thoughts on why you prefer either platform for RAC. Specifically why would
> you avoid windows (other than the fact that it's evil), or would you?
>
> RF
>
>
> Robert G. Freeman
> Master Principle Consultant, Oracle Corporation
> Oracle ACE
> Author:
> Oracle Database 11g RMAN Backup and Recovery (Oracle Press) - ON ITS WAY
> SOON!
> OCP: Oracle Database 11g Administrator Certified Professional Study Guide
> (Sybex)
> Oracle Database 11g New Features (Oracle Press)
> Oracle Database 10g New Features (Oracle Press)
> Other various titles
> Blog: http://robertgfreeman.blogspot.com
>
>
> ________________________________
> Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Mon Feb 22 2010 - 21:11:48 CST