Greg,
You are the second person that had told me that Win2k Advanced Server
requires a multi-processor box. Someone at the MS event told me that a
dual-processor or better box would be desirable; but not necessarily
required. I have personally seen that a Dell PentiumII-266 w. 64 MB of RAM is
not enough. Perhaps, two or more single CPU boxes in a cluster would be
viable(and more readily available for testing)?
Rodney
Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2000 at 06:14:51AM -0800, Rodney Mishima wrote:
> >
> > But seriously, from presentations I saw; it looks like COM+ is
> > well-designed, well-thought out.
>
> But what else would they say at a demo about COM+? That it's a bandaid
> on top of a kludge on top of a broken API (which is what it really is.)
>
> >
> > On the Windows side, I'll first install Win 2000 professional, then
> > upgrade to Win 2000 Server, and finally Win 2000 Advanced Server.
>
> Be VERY mindful of the system requirements of these OS's. If you don't
> have a multiprocessing machine, you can't run Advanced Server.
>
> >
> > I am wondering. If it is true that Win 2000 Advanced Server leaps ahead
> > of Unix/Oracle; why can't Linux(possibly TurboCluster) running on the
> > same hardware leap ahead of Win 2000?
>
> It probably can, but since it's illegal to publish benchmarks about
> Oracle (without Oracle's permission) you will never see that fact in
> print. I have friends who have run benchmarks on identical machines
> running Oracle on NT, SCO, and Linux and have now switched to using
> Linux on their servers if that's any indication :)
>
> Have fun going through the endless install cycles.
>
> greg k-h
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
