Re: Oracle On Compaq Server

From: Niall Litchfield <n-litchfield_at_audit-commission.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:14:54 -0000
Message-ID: <40430d1e$0$10337$ed9e5944@reading.news.pipex.net>

"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.

-- 
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK

.

Received on Mon Mar 01 2004 - 04:14:54 CST