RE: Oracle newbie [Oracle/NT backup/perf/hardware]

On 6 Nov 2000, at 12:30, DanversJ wrote:

Date sent:      	Mon, 06 Nov 2000 12:30:23 -0800
To:             	Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <ORACLE-L_at_fatcity.com>
From:           	DanversJ <DanversJ_at_gunlocke.com>
Subject:        	RE: Oracle newbie [Oracle/NT backup/perf/hardware]

> virtues of oracles being cross platform capable, etc..., and in the same
> breath the fact that it can be run on everything from windows 95 on up
> through "heavy metal" big unix mainframes. In any case, it gives one the
> impression that it can run on relatively small'ish hardware ( ie; smallish
> disks and smallish memory constraints ) I tend to dis-believe

JD,

Oracle marketing is as much of a "beast" as the software. :)

They don't care if you are tempted to buy it, then need to spend a lot on new server hardware/software to make it work.

Oracle will *run* on low-end platforms, but the question is, will it run *well* in your environment. You've got reliability issues, and you've got performance issues.

A lot of that stuff rides on the base NT server configuration, and/or network performance.

(heresy:)
For "small" databases, you can probably get away with throwing money at hardware upgrades (cpu+RAM+fast disk) for a while, maybe quite a while. This might be more cost effective than creating/training/hiring/etc a "industrial strength" DBA competent person. eg, Oracle DBA training probably costs about $20,000, and then if you don't give that person a raise, they are gone when they hear a better job offer.

FYI, we originally ran Oracle6 on Netware3 with 32Mb RAM, and now run Oracle7.3 with 96Mb RAM. We are currently migrating to NT(2000)/Oracle8i on a 2cpu 667mhz IBM Netfinity 5100 w/512Mb RAM &RAID (mirrored disks). This is for a small database, but we wanted potential expandability, and may try to run webserver on the same box (I can hear DBAs screaming from here!).

(btw, as you may know, Netware3 had a hard time support 32mb RAM, since in the early days, 16mb was as much as most file servers needed, and going above required special configuration!)

> this. I am
> active in an NT admin listserv and posted a question on that list about
> oracle once

It took me a few minutes to remember where I'd seen your "handle". :) welcome aboard, don't let the unix dbas scare you too much.

>( our hard drive on the server in question filled to capacity )
> and I was told that a 12 gig dB is small in oracle speak. ( aiy yai yai....

Compared to many mainframe/unix Oracle sites, 12gb is small. However, compared to your average MS access/sql database, it probaby isn't. :)

I'd guess that if the internal complexity of the database structure and application isn't really complicated, *and* the size of the database isn't all that huge, *and* there aren't going to be a lot of users hitting it hard, you *might* be ok. The problem is that without doing in-depth performance testing, the users might see slowdowns, possibly incremental, as the thing is deployed and comes under increasing load. then you'll be in a potentially sucky position of having to do a hardware upgrade (possibly a new, faster server) in the middle of the deployment, and trashing production.

I'd take a hard look at how far you can push disk and cpu performance on that box with internal ungrades, and start looking at what kind of replacement is available and a time-line (for your budgeting issues and so forth).

per Tom Cox's SLA stuff, try to get the users and the "oracle person" to commit to writing on how much down time they are willing to buy into with the current hardware and backup scheme. if they aren't willing/able to put resources into the right kinds of solutions that will let you do a fast recovery, then everyone ought to know that if things go south, it might take days to get it fixed.

This probably ought to include a decent test box for the server and database so you can trash it, and practice doing recoveries as Received on Mon Nov 06 2000 - 16:31:51 CST