of course, we did the same when we ran on SCO V, and we do the same for
mssql.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
news:c206ss$lek$1_at_news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
> Niall Litchfield wrote:
>
> > "Syltrem" <syltremzulu_at_videotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:eLI%b.329$Xy3.938_at_tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> >
> >>"Niall Litchfield" <niall.litchfield_at_dial.pipex.com> a écrit dans le
> >
> > message
> >
> >>de news:403e6f69$0$49$cc9e4d1f_at_news.dial.pipex.com...
> >>
> >>>"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message
> >>>news:1077814602.488439_at_yasure...
> >>>
> >>>>We're talking Oracle here not MS Word. Do you really want your
> >>>>production database running on a platform where at least once a
> >>>>week you are instructed to apply a security patch and reboot?
> >>>
> >>>I have no problem with running production databases on Windows.
> >
> > scheduling
> >
> >>>maintenance windows is perfectly fine by me.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>It's funny how people are willing to spend time rebooting windows and
> >>installing patches, sometimes a couple' times per week. And this is seen
> >
> > at
> >
> >>"normal" maintenance.
> >>I'm pretty sure the same people wouldn't accept to go to the mechanic to
> >
> > fix
> >
> >>their car (or TV, or VCR...) that often. Most sure of this indeed.
> >>
> >>I have Windows 2000 Pro at home. In the last 52 weeks, it crashed 21
times
> >>(maybe 2 of them were because of power failures) and the average uptime
is
> >
> > a
> >
> >>little more than 3 days. Longest uptime is 21 days (after which I had to
> >>reboot due to numerous stupid problems I was starting to get). And I
> >
> > *don't*
> >
> >>play games, install strange software, or anything considered "risky".
> >>Strictly terminal emulation, Internet, MS-Office and burning music CDs.
> >>There's no way I would run a business on such a flimsy OS.
> >>In the office its the same (Win XP) but I don't collect stats here.
> >
> >
> > I collected some stats for oracle-l when a similar argument was made
> > recently. For the last 3 months (the period for which I had stats) for
our 4
> > business critical systems
> > System 1 Availability: 99.9945%
> > System 2 Availability: 99.9816%
> > System 3 Availability: 99.9926%
> > System 4 Availability: 100.0000% (but missing a patch or two for other
> > reasons.)
> > Gotta like the 4 decimal places uptime.exe reports...
> >
> > This isn't intended as a my systems are better than yours diatribe, just
an
> > indicator that windows systems can be perfectly available and reliable.
I'd
> > be prepared to bet that for at least the first year in a *nix
environment
> > competent windows sysadmins would produce systems with worse
availability
> > stats than their old windows boxes and vice versa.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I bet you "behave" on your Windows systems. And with that, I mean you
> install the OS, possibly take out what you don't need (Outlook, IIS,
> anyone?), install and run Oracle.
>
> No more, no less. No PDC and Exchange, too, no fileserver, anything of
> that.
> --
>
> Regards,
> Frank van Bortel
>
Received on Tue Mar 02 2004 - 02:47:52 CST
