Re: Windows vs Linux Performance

mccmx_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> > The biggest issue I have seen with RAC on Windows they didn't even test.
> > The point of RAC is not how much water can I push through the pipe. The
> > point of RAC is FAILOVER.
> >
> > My experience with Windows and failover is that what happens with Linux,
> > subsecond, can take up to 25 seconds with Windows which is not acceptable.
>
> Fair point but the whole point of the document was to compare
> performance of Windows vs Linux, not failover.

It's hard to tell what the point of the document was. Some performance comparison firm that nobody ever heard of before. Probably paid to come up with the finding that they did would be my guess.

>
> I would lke to have seen the comparison done without the added
> complexity of RAC involved.

And without ASM also. And including all the relevant information to see if they properly configured linux IO ... which I doubt.

I wouldn't be surprised if the memory configuration was messed up on the linux side. Received on Mon Jan 22 2007 - 16:11:20 CST