On SQL Server vs. Oracle -
Oracle scales better. Consider for a moment that most of Microsoft's
vision for SQL Server is on a quad processor box or less. Over 90% of SQL
Server installations have four or less processors. Anything over 8
processors and your looking at Windows DataCenter which has an additional
cost to it. Oracle, on the other hand, has been committed to SMP for quite
some time, and can scale better. Oracle can run on 'the big iron' as well
as the smaller DL380 that you have stuck over in the dusty server rack
that nobody has visited in a year.
Oracle typically delivers a higher TPM count then SQL Server. Now, I admit
that this is somewhat subjective and depends upon which set of comparisons
(and which vendor wrote them) you read, but...
Commitment is something else that should be considered. If you are
planning to run SQL Server, you are committed to the Windows platform -
period. If you use Oracle, you have freedom to choose - and you can
migrate if you need to at later date with far more ease.
In my experience, Oracle is the database of choice for larger scale
implementations that are expected to get pounded on. SQL Server
installations typically are the ones that can take some down time for
reboots and 'hot fix' and 'service pack' applications. I am sure that
there are exceptions out there, but this is what I have seen.
On Windows vs. Linux/Unix/*Nix du Jour -
Unix based operating systems are available in a variety of flavors. One of
these flavors might fit your specific environment a bit better than
another, so you have some room to investigate (aka Solaris on Sun hardware
vs Enterprise Linux on an Intel/Xeon box).
Windows, on the other hand, is - well - Windows. Windows runs on x86 based
Intel or psuedo Intel systems. (There once was a verion of NT that ran on
Alpha systems, but that went the way of the do-do bird) With the exception
of the 64 bit processors, and perhaps the version that they tried to run
on the mainframe systems, does Windows run on anything else?
Longevity of an operating system is something that should be considered as
well. In the Microsoft world, the customer is expected to upgrade. Windows
NT4 was end-of-lifed, was it not? Windows 2000 is not that far behind.
There are no more 'service packs' for it. Now this sort of situation is
going to make maintaining the platform difficult, so, as a customer, you
are effectively pushed to the new 2003 platform. Unix however, is
different.
On a unix platform, you are free to upgrade individual components of the
operating system as needed. For example, if the SSH server that you are
using has a known vulnerability, it's possible to replace it. You can do
this same thing with other key components of the operating system. It's
not something that is 'integrated' into the operating system. (If you did
not have to upgrade your webserver because IIS 4 was not being maintained
- would you? Is it possible to upgrade IIS on Windows NT4 to IIS 6? -
Sounds strange, doesn't it?)
If someone is considering migrating from Unix to Windows, I would think
twice. Now I am not saying this to be difficult, or to slam one or the
other, or even debate which is technically more 'superior'. There are a
number of studies out there which do this equally well in one way or the
other.
What I am trying to say is that you're the one holding the paint can, it
would be wise to make sure that there is a clear path to that door, rather
than getting comfy in the corner.
If your call center, or user base is going to grow, or if your going to be
integrating other systems into your installation, these are considerations
that need to be planned for before you migrate. The question should not be
'Why not Microsoft?' but rather 'what is the time, expense, and pain of
the migration actually going to return?' If your answer is 'it's going to
be easier to manage with tool X' or some sort of variant thereof, you're
probably going through the motions for the wrong reason.
Just my thoughts.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Rocky Rockwell wrote:
One thin I have noticed on windows 2k server, it needs rebooting during
normal operations, it is more like SOP (this is just what I have seen. Also,
things disappear (ie: dlls)) or they get corrupted. We are now on UNIX all
the way around (DB,Application, Web) and I have yet to reboot or touch the
machines in over 1 year.
*Rocky*
Rocky Rockwell
eMA Team – Remedy Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ph#1: 214-567-8874
Ph#2: 325-884-1263
Scott Neeb wrote:
We have an initiative at my work entitled "Why Not Microsoft?". We're
supposed to ask ourselves at critical application milestones if we should
contemplate moving Remedy to the Windows platform. We currently reside on
UNIX with an Oracle database, so Remedy is always being evaluated as a
candidate for the move. They asked me today if there are any
advantages/disadvantages between running Remedy on UNIX/Oracle as compared
to Windows/SQL Server. I haven't seen any documentation or user comments
anywhere on the internet, so I was wondering if any of you have any prior
experience with this type of move, and if you've seen any advantages or
disadvantages to this type of move as it relates to the ARSystem. Thanks
in advance.
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
