| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Opinions Wanted on Oracle for NT
See below....
Spencer Olson <spencer_olsen_at_ssb.com> wrote in article
<336A0594.4D68_at_ssb.com>...
> Mark Wagoner wrote:
> >
> > Well, now that you have heard from the Unix bigots, here is a little
> > unbiased opinion.
> >
> > We are an ISV offering an Oracle system on either HP/UX or NT 4.0 (yes,
> > Oracle is certified on NT 4.0). We have 80 customers running NT and 5
> > running HP/UX mostly because of the price/perfomance difference and
ease of
> > administration.
>
> Price performance, now that's rich. For an unbiased article on price
performance and Windows NT/UNIX try
> reading one of the new issues of LAN Times which indicates that UNIX not
only outperforms NT, but is >cheaper!
I would have to agree with Mark, if initial cost is a factor, definitely go
with NT. I have been putting
together some research myself trying to determine whether to go with NT or
HP-UX. I have a
administrative background with HP-UX. But hear my comments below...
> And I would argue about the ease of adminstration. NT still lacks a
robust scripting language which is the
> backbone of most adminstration tasks. Thus you are confined (in NT) by
what vendors supply what products and
> have which features when it come to the day to day Oracle DB
adminstration.
>
NT and UX have there adminstrative pitfalls. NT is VERY easy to administer from the disk/cpu side of it... but from the user side... go with unix. If you don't intend to place a lot of control over the users... NT is easy to fit for the job.
> >
> > Both the HP and the NT systems operate 24x7 and both have the exact
same
> > features. In addition to the database box, we also use either an NT or
HP
> > box as an application server, which may or may not be the same as the
> > database box.
>
> I would have to concur with the earlier posted note. What would you want
managing the flight instrumentation
> on the plane you are flying in, NT or UNIX?
>
Both, I feel, are reliable OS's. But consider how long Unix has been
about. It's only a matter of time
for NT to be as robust as Unix. It is true that NT lacks the scripting
ability of Unix... but when you add
the public domain version of Perl scripting language... NT becomes very
easy to script.
> >
> > In short, if you need a quick install with minimal administrative
> > maintenance and you are fairly small (100-200 users and < 50G data), NT
is
> > a more cost-effective approache. If you already have the Unix
> > infrastructure and are planning to go large scale, use Unix.
> >
> Anyone heard of an NT box, with 200 concurrent users, and 50GB of data?
I did not think so. Also, if you
> have the need for 200 users, 50GB of data, and you think that the
administration needs are going to be
> minimal, I am both confounded and amazed by your audacity!
>
I had to laugh at the 100-200 user comment. I would say that any well
configured NT box could not
handle that number of concurrent users. Unix does this well. In my
opinion, NT was not intended to
do so. NT is geared towards client-server... and "clients", depending on
the software being used,
would have less impact then concurrent 'on-line' users. But that is with
ANY OS... NT or Unix.
We went with the NT box running Oracle.
Stay tuned.
Xoltan
xoltan_at_usa.net
http://www.citynet.net/personal/xoltan/
-Calvin and Hobbes Received on Fri May 02 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT
 |
 |