Re: Oracle's relationships with expert DBAs (and the rest of us mere mortals)

• Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
  > Quoting MVE <mvetmp-ora_at_yahoo.com>:
  >
  > > I still don't see any value in going Linux even for a shop on a tight
  > > budget this is just a trend. They shoot themselves in the foot by doing
  > > so and will be paying the price in the next 4 years.
  >
  >
  > I have to disagree with this view that Linux is expensive in the
  > long run. Mainly because I've been Linux only for the last
  > 14 months (and mostly Linux for 3 years now) in our shop and
  > I see no evidence whatsoever of increased running costs.
  >
  > Quite the opposite, in fact.
  >
  > We used to be Solaris/Sun. In common with just about every other
  > proprietary solution, Sun kept changing their hardware/software
  > platform every year, at a cost: to us. These were physical architecture
  > changes, not just slight upgrades! That meant complete retest
  > of not only Solaris-to-app but app-to-everythingelse and
  > Solaris-to-everythingelse. Expensive!
  >
  

I have been working for a Sun/Solaris shop for the last 5 years (they have been in business for the last 12) and I have seen ZERO evidence of "Sun kept changing their hardware/software". We made good initial investment and ran on the same boxes for 7 years! And when the time came to switch to new hardware/os it was a simple backup/restore/relink -- not a single patch had to be applied on the ORACLE/APPS side!

> The only thing that costs us considerable money is the amount
> of testing we have to do to make sure Oracle runs fine with
> Linux when we get new releases of each. But that to me is
> a problem of Oracle, not Linux! And it is manageable and
> doesn't cost the earth - although it *IS* a cost.

Well you are running ORACLE aren't you!!?? So why would you choose an OS platform that requires the most amount of work? As I said when we switched from older Sun/Solaris boxes/os to newer:

    [DB] E6500/2.6 -> V890/2.9
    [MT] E420R/2.6 -> V210/2.9

all that had to be done was a relink!

> The other big cost we have is in setting up and installing
> new boxes: the number of patches and hoops we have to go through
> is above average compared to others. But, that is an INITIAL
> cost. Not a recurring maintenance cost!

This is NOT only initial cost YOU have to jump through the same hoops every time Linux changes their os which is more often than Solaris (we ran on the same boxes same os for 7 years).

> And once again it's mostly because of our choice to use Oracle:
> no matter how much they have bleated over the last 5 years or so
> of how friendly they are to Linux, it's not true.

And again you are running ORACLE why would you choose the worst possible hardware/os for it? This is an ORACLE list after all where we collaborate on the best practices of running ORACLE. ORACLE/Linux is not the best practice.

NOT getting the BEST hardware/os for an ORACLE shop is like buying inferior tools for you construction crew -- it will ALWAYS cost you in the long run and eventually you have to replace all this crap anyway.

If your shop can't afford NEW hardware then buy it used (there's plenty out there after the dot.com crash). Build up the business and then switch to new boxes. You'll be better off in the long run.

• Vitaliy -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l