On Thu, 07 Jun 2001, Ian Brayshaw wrote:
> >I didn't even reallise you could get NT for serious mips .. I though it
> >only ran on likkle PC things ...
> I wouldn't have used the word "ran" ...
I did put something about htat but deleted it .. I leave it in next time.
I have worked on Solaris boxen that have been up running fo , literally
years. I have worked on NT boxes that have worn out hteir power buttons,
> The chief "advisor" raves about the power, flexibility and price of
> SQueaLServer19100 being more than a match for Oracle 8i/9i.
obviously clueballs. I haven't run large dbs on NT .. I did for a while
run a terrabyte or so of data from a NT machine and some fibrechannel
switches, and fibrechannel raid arrays ... the words 'flakey' and 'blue
screened again' come to mind ... it would blue screen arouand twice a
month and just plain slow up to a crawl around once a week ...
> What I'm trying to find is industry evidence of SQueaL's performance (or
> lack of). The more gory the details the better. Our VB "guru" exclaims the
> ease with which "a major New Zealand bank" rolled out SQueaL on (what I can
> presume to be a truck load of) NT servers "without a hitch". He's a nice
> guy, but he's living in La-la-land if he thinks the throughput of a Kiwi
> bank matches that of an international telco.
Leons links to TPC are ace .. thats amazing .. the best NT powered thing
is at a piss poor 1700 ... presumably NT doesnt scale well to a 128
processor UltraSparc then ;)))
> So far the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the *nix & DBA people have been
> ignored. Has anyone else had to deal with this sort of mind set? Any advice
> (apart from becoming a US postal worker...)
hmm .. well .. depends on how much you need the job ... I quit trying to
save idiots from themselves years ago ... tell em .. then tell em what
you told em .. then tell em again .. if they still don;t get it then fsck
em. they're clueballs. let em implement it and enjoy the laughter.
Redpoint Consulting Limited
Real Solutions For A Virtual World