Re: Windows vs Linux Performance

From: Jerome Vitalis <vitalismanN0SP4M_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:49:13 +0100
Message-ID: <45b666b5$0$170$a3f2974a@nnrp1.numericable.fr>

hpuxrac wrote:
> 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.

Strangely, the only other website hosting this whitepaper seems to be http://www.microsoft-oracle.com/oracledb/Pages/Whitepapers.aspx ...

And searching "larry pedigo" on Google shows that he has written other whitepapers as:
Comparison of 32-bit and 64-bit Oracle Database Performance on the Dell PowerEdge 6850 Server with Microsoft Windows Server 2003 (PDF) Dell, *A White Paper sponsored by Dell and Microsoft*, by Larry Pedigo, Performance Tuning Corporation, August 2005.

http://www.mhavila.com.br/link/db/compare.html Received on Tue Jan 23 2007 - 13:49:13 CST