From: Arjan Fraaij (hpux-admin@zonnet.nl)
Date: Fri Dec 20 2002 - 16:20:02 EST
Thanks to all who replied......
Looking in the search engines to find a report about this subject isn't really easy...... enough comments yes but no real understandble docs there.
For those who want to now what was said I collected 'almost' all anwsers below this line:
as you know and I know, Oracle really NEEDS huge amounts of
RAM and using less than some GBs of RAM won't permit your DBs
to run as fast as your business demands!
Pity that MS Windows only allows up to 2GB of RAM per process
(ok, up to 3GB with Advanced Server Edition), and how many
PCs do you know being equiped with more than 4 CPUs? Oracle
*loves* to use many CPUs ;-)
-----
There is no such thing as a "Really good Microsoft System".
----
- Plan to purchase at least 3x the number of boxes
and about 3x the number of sysadmins and DBAs to
figure out how to make this stuff work, especially
if the database grows into hundreds to thousands
of gigabytes.
- Plan on additional staff to handle the security
and patching issues, along 24x7 support to keep
the machines from bluescreen problems.
Unix is scalable into the petabyte range and 64bit
operations are ancient history in the Unix world.
Unix is a 20 year old opsystem with stable code
rather than the latest bleeding edge opsystem from
Redmond with only a couple of years' worth of
real world experience.
Even for the small shop, the minor difference in
hardware costs (checkout A and L series prices)
can't make up for the labor intensive (costly)
effort needed to finally make an Oracle database
run successfully. If you can get strong technical
skills for the PC platform, then you may see a
reasonable solution, but certainly not enough to
change--unless you have no technical skills for
the current HP-UX platforms.
-----------
Some items off the top of my head that you can do futher research on via google, computerworld, infoworld, eweek, etc:
Security: Windows still has many more critical security flaws than HP-UX
Constancy: Most HP-UX changes do not require reboots, allowing systems to stay up months to years at a time vs. even Windows 2000 that can require many reboots in a week.
Stability: Many programs can be written to crash Windows without having system access (equivalent of HP-UX root). HP-UX handles privildge escalation much more gracefully, stopping it in most cases. Also kernel memory is much more protected in HP-UX than it is in Windows 2000.
--------------
(BTW when I say NT - I include W2K [which is just NT5] and XP [which is just NT5.5])
The 4 S's: Security, Stability, Scalability and Support
NT has average Security and is plagued by a lot of unknowns - it is *easier* to secure Unix than it is to secure NT
Stability is the old one - NTs uptime is terrible compared to an equivalent Unix system
Scalability is what has damaged some of our projects - NT handles the test environment fine; then its put live and crawls to a halt.
Unix *is* easier to support - the problems behind NTs interface (ie its GUI only) cause a lot of issues with remote support. There is also the unknown issue - ie NT admins are never actually certain what the system is *trying* to do as opposed to what it *should* do.
--------------
--
---> Please post QUESTIONS and SUMMARIES only!! <---
To subscribe/unsubscribe to this list, contact majordomo@dutchworks.nl
Name: hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl Owner: owner-hpux-admin@dutchworks.nl
Archives: ftp.dutchworks.nl:/pub/digests/hpux-admin (FTP, browse only)
http://www.dutchworks.nl/htbin/hpsysadmin (Web, browse & search)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 11:02:23 EDT