oracle

[HP-UX User_1]

Does anyone have any hard data or sources on the performance comparisons of running Oracle on NT vs. HP-UX??"

[Steven E. Protter · Accepted solution]

Yes, I have some hard anectdotal data.

With standard oracle reports, and record counts a 5 year old PA-Risc D-Class box at our shop blew the doors off a brand new NT installation in a test we did last year. the NT box was several years newer with the same amount of RAM.

Oracles fastest transaction times in all recent tests was on HP's superdome platform.

Lastly my DBA threatened to quit if they EVER make him work on an Oracle database running on NT/W2K

How's that?

SEP

[Jeff Schussele]

Hi Michelle,

Off question...put performance totally aside - even though I know the outcome (hint it ain't M$) - focus on availibity.
NO winblows product can touch *any* 'NIX with Oracle.
Mgmnt will tell you they want perf, when the bottom line is ALWAYS availibity. Believe me I know..I've seen it time & again.

My 2 cents,
Jeff

[Khalid A. Al-Tayaran]

Try this:

http://www.oracle.com/ip/deploy/database/oracle9i/index.html?oracle_linux.html

[Indira Aramandla]

Hi Michelle,

Benchmarked the performance of Oracle NT vs Oracle on Unix??? .

This is really a non-trivial question that has a different answer to everyone. Often the hardware platform will vary so greatly and the prices will vary so greatly that it's really difficult to make heads or tails out of a 'benchmark'.

Some things to consider:
1. How big will this database be? (Both in size and # of users)
2. Do you expect it to grow significantly in size or # of users, in the foreseeable future?
3. Are you an NT or Unix type? If you switch, there will be a learning curve.
4. What about your system administration staff? Do they have NT expertise? Unix expertise? (I think a good unix admin still costs more than an NT admin, but I haven't checked lately.)

My preference is unix, particularly on the high-end.

Here are few other users views :-

USER 1:--
If you're in the low-end market: You can get systems with lots of spindles (disks), gobs of CPU and tons of RAM. But if you're on a budget, and you think you can get a PC-based server and save bundle on the hardware, remember that it doesn't compare to the SPARC box that Sun wants $20k - $30k more than that PC server you've been eyeing. Even with equivalent CPU, RAM, and disks, the PC-based server is still just a glorified and decked out PC. The Sun will have a faster system/memory bus and architecture. This will directly translate to how many users you can support. (In the example above, you can replace Sun with HP)

USER 2:-
I have benchmarked Dell servers running NT 4.0 against an HP K580. The Dell had 4x700MHz processors, 4 Gig RAM and connected to a Fibre SAN. The HP server contained 2x200MHz processors with 4 Gig RAM and also connected to the same Fibre SAN. You may think the Dells performance would be at least equal to the HP, but it simply isn't the case. The benchmark was carried out using the SAP application. The Dell server performance was equal to the HPs for a single batch job. However, when multiple jobs were run in parallel the Dell server suffered from poor I/O performance. When an online backup was run, the Dell performance was significantly impacted (negatively). The HP server (during an online) had little impact. Overall, when the servers were stressed, the I/O on the Dell servers slowed to a point that was noticable to users.

Also, the HP server is fairly old (1997) and the Dell servers are from 1999. It should also be mentioned that the HP server cost about 200K (new) and the Dell server was about 20K.

USER 3:-
I've done Oracle installations at both NT/2000 sites as well as Sun/HP Unix sites.
With the type of work I'm doing (11i implementations) performance is important, but stability is even more important. It has been my experience that Oracle is very stable in both of these environments.

Unfortunately, on NT/2000 the weak link is the OS. There's no way around it, but Windows needs rebooting. And sometimes for the lamest reasons. This is where Unix has it all over Windows.

[Alexander M. Ermes]

Hi there.
Just my 2 ct ( ??? ).
If you install Oracle on two identical systems
the same way with the only difference in OS
( MS / Linux ), the Linux platform gives you better performance and better stability.

I have done this at home on one machine
( 700 MHz Athlon / 1024 MB RAM / three disks
of 100 MB each ) and the looser is ... MS.

Sorry for the people, who have to live with it, but this is my experience.
At work i had two install an Oracle database
on a Win NT4 server.
We cannot get the OEM from my machine to start jobs on this server.
No probs on Unix.
So my way is clear. I will ask my boss for a Linux testmachine.
Rgds
Alexander M. Ermes