On 18 Feb 00, at 13:25, Rodney Mishima wrote:
> 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)?
I've been looking at ways to implement a large Oracle database for
the U of O this past week. I talked to the guy who was in charge of
writing the database and UIs, and he seemed to think that a 600
Mhz Pentium with 1 GB RAM was the right size for Linux or NT.
He made a point to tell me that if I was going to use NT, to get a 4-
processor motherboard, in the expectation that it would eventually
migrated to win2K. Given Oracle's new pricing scheme, 1
processor's license would cost $21K. As Oracle now prices per
Mhz on the motherboard, our license for Oracle would jump to
$84K, and we get 25-35% off retail, depending on module, this
becomes a *real* big factor for me when I'm in the meeting next
week suggesting possible setups of this system to my boss.
As for clustering, I hope they've done a better job than with NT 4.
They've got an Alpha cluster running a big Oracle database under
NT at the U, and it's butt slow. It also doesn't work real well a lot of
the time.
There was a poll over at ZDNet yesterday, concerning when people
were planning to migrate to Win2K. The largest percentage of
voters (about 2:1) said, "When they pry my cold, dead fingers off
my Linux box."
Unscientific-- but funny....
Cheers,
Dennis
> 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]
>
"Custard pies are a sort of esperanto: a universal language."
--Noel Godin
