Re: Oracle On Compaq Server

It's nice to hear that it works well (very well from the looks of it) for you.
Problem is, you can't get the best out of those windoze machines from what I can see.

I have OpenVMS running Oracle, Gembase 4GL, Progress rdbms & 4GL, Basic, Fortran, Cobol, Powerhouse 4GL, Apache, Pathworks (VMS becomes an active Windows domain member with this), etc, about 500 users, all on the same machine.
I can install new software or patches to existing software (in a new home for the latter) without a need for a reboot and without affecting the running applications and users. I don't care about viruses and daily security patches.

We too have a bunch of Windows boxes, each doing its own task (exchange, McAfee, IIS). But don't ever try to have one box running multiple softwares, you'll start to have (more) problems. You can pile up windows servers, but I'd rather have just one machine to care about, knowing it will not crash on me or ask for a reboot every time I touch it with an install or just config change.

I don't want to start an OS war but the fact is, windows is not made to run too many things on one machine, there are too many conflicts of all sorts that can happen. Install one little thing (a printer driver can be enough - I've seen it happen) and you may have to reinstall the whole machine from scratch because it broke something hidden in the registry or else, causing a conflict with your business application. That's why I won't trust it for software my business is dependant upon to survive.

Regards,

-- 
Syltrem

OpenVMS 7.3-1 + Oracle 8.1.7.4
http://pages.infinit.net/syltrem (OpenVMS related web site, en français)
---zulu is not in my email address---
"Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> a écrit dans le message de
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

>