Re: oracle9i performance on Windows Server

"Paul Brewer" <nothing_at_nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<40e1d369$1_3_at_mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com>...
> "Paul Drake" <bdbafh_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:910046b4.0406261804.18d4db9e_at_posting.google.com...
> > Sybrand Bakker <sybrandb_at_hccnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:<8ljrd0hd126prmh6kqgcpjgagca0qgqv5o_at_4ax.com>...
> > > On 26 Jun 2004 10:59:01 -0700, premmehrotra_at_hotmail.com (Prem K
> > > Mehrotra) wrote:
> > >
> > > >My managemnt wants to use Windows servers instead of UNIX servers to
> > > >save costs. LINUX is not an option because my data center does not
> support

I've also run into this kind of attitude where a place has a "regular" commercial unix and Windows but won't go for linux. Since I've done both regular unix at work and linux at home for many years, I can't help but think it is entirely bogus, but I never know how to explain that in a nice way. I think the attitude may come from sites wanting to have specific procedures for every possible admin issue, which is nearly as ridiculous for sysadmins as it is for DBA's.

> > > >it. We are looking into buying HP's ProLiant G2 BL20p model of servers.
> It has
> > > >2 CPU's. We will get maximum memory of 8GB.
> > > >
> > > >We may get 1 or 2 internal drives. My database is not that big
> ~10GB.
> > > >However, 100 of users will be concurrently accessing it. Also, it will
> > > >be used for OLTP as well as for reporting.
> > > >
> > > >I have not worked with Windows server earlier. Are there benchmarks
> avaiable
> > > >for WIindows server vs HP UNIx servers. I have nothing against using
> Windows
> > > >Servers, just want to make sure performnace will not be an issue.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Thank you.
> > > >
> > > >Prem
> > >
> > >
> > > Google is your friend as usual. Recently (IIRC Howard Rogers)
> > > conducted a comparative study between Linux and Windoze.
> > > Needless to say Linux was much faster.
> > >
> > > Note also you need Windows Advanced Server to make use of any memory
> > > beyond 4 G at all, and Dead Connection Detection will not work, and
> > > prespawned servers will also not work.
> > > You may be in for some unpleasant suprises.
> > > By design the Windows O/S has limited scalability unlike Unix.
> > >
> > > Please make sure you have your management sign a letter you aren't
> > > responsible for any performance issues, which result from the platform
> > > swap.
> >
> > "Dead Connection Detection will not work"
> > Sybrand speaketh the truth here.
> >
> > nothing like a user that is blocked but is holding locks hitting
> > <ctrl>+<alt>+<del>, logging back into the app, and repeating what they
> > just did, slamming right into the locks held by their now zombied
> > session.
> >
> > logjam.
> >
> > be prepared to do some database babysitting, and rolling a routine to
> > (ora)kill zombies.
> >
> > this is without a doubt the number one PITA running on win32.
> >
> > -bdbafh
>
> Wow. I'm astonished. I must have been leading a life of luxury.
>
> Recent anecdote:
>
> We run Oracle 817 and 912 on hpux and Solaris.
> An anxious lead developer rang me on Friday evening. "I'm sorry, Paul; I
> submitted a stupid SQL select against Prod. I'm worried it won't finish, and
> will mess up batch jobs/shutdown/backups".
> "Don't worry, Greg", quoth I. "This is Oracle; you'll be OK. Just
> ctrl-alt-delete, kill your TOAD session, go home and enjoy your weekend. The
> database will clean up". And of course it did, as it has every time since at
> least 1997.
>
> Do I now have to start worrying again in this scenario if the instance is
> running on Winsucks?
>
> Regards,
> Paul

I haven't used Toad in years and am not affiliated with Quest, but just as I was reading this post I got a solicited email that had this link in it: http://www.quest.com/events/list.asp?sContentTypeId=7#754

Maybe you can ask the Toad developers.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
"Career is what's behind you. What's ahead are jobs and choices." -
Alfred Molina