A-LIST : No 1- Stability + performance IBM + DB2 (Hardware/OS
mean time between critical failure 20-30 years - DB2 performance & CBO years
before Oracle)
: No 2- Stability + performance UNIX + Oracle
(Unix-say no more - Oracle catching up fast with DB2)
: No N- Stability + performance Various flavors
..
..
..
C-LIST Oh Yeah - Stability + performance NT + Sqlserver - just
above
Stability + performance PC compatible and
Windows 95. -
Of course Microsoft , we couldn't have lived without them and how they
changed the world, but it would have been nice if their products actually
worked.
Microsoft should be struck off for bad practice, and the amount of times my
PC,Server ,has had to be REEEEEEEEBOOOOOOTEEED at critical times.
Sam Roberts
----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:31 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Just because Oracle hasn't done a benchmark doesn't mean Oracle can't out
perform SQL-Server or DB2. Benchmark is very expensive to do, Oracle
doesn't need to prove to the world every year that it is the best. Oracle
has the reputation that MS and IBM don't have. That's why MS and IBM needs
to do it. And do you know how many scientists MS had to do that benchmark?
I wonder if they factor that into the Price/Performance. Can you (do you)
have the same resources in the real world to achive that result? Needless
to say performance is not the only thing you measure a DB. How good is
SQL-Server when the underlying OS crashes so often?
Richard Ji
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 10:56 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
"NT still pants"...LOL!!!
It must be panting alot, It has BLOWN THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in
running
SQLServer on NT, as has DB2.
The general public ( and anyone else ) can wake up and smell the coffee at
www.tpc.org <http://www.tpc.org> .
Check out the Top Ten TPC-C marks, by pure performance.
Not interested in pure peformance? Check out the Price/Performance leaders.
Oracle doesn't
even SHOW UP in the top ten. What a shocker, eh? It's painful to lose our
illusions....
Oh, what's that? You don't like TPC-C? It's outmoded or somesuch? Fine,
check out ANY
of the TPC benchmarks. Oracle is NEVER in the top three. Usually, it doesn't
even show
up.
I mean, I like Oracle, too, but....by the time you turn on the multimode
airconditioner, use
the 12-way adjustable power bucket seats, activate the object-oriented
OnStar Satellite
navigational system, power up the heated side view mirrors and all the other
tools, trinkets,
and toys that make it my personal favorite database, there *is* the chance
that the
twenty year old genius mechanic in the the tricked out Nova next to you at
the light is going
to kick your ass when the light turns green.
But really, I still love Oracle. Warts and all.
Wanna drag?
(heh heh heh)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 6:45 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
I have actually been doing a fair it of reading on this since the topic was
brought up, and stand corrected, as earlier mentioned. But I have to say
guys that NT is still fairly "pants" when it comes to handling multi
threaded processes.. Win2K is a great improvement but M$ still has a lot of
work to do on in my view. (only when you compare this against UNIX)
Now don't get me wrong, there is enough traffic on this list about this at
the moment, so I dont want more bandwith added with this thread if at all
possible :)
Thanks for the reply anyway Yong, I think I will wait for a "good" book on
Win2k to come out (unless you know one?) before I go out and buy one (books
come out of my pocket as I am a sales person mostly).. NT as far as I am
concerned is now in Win2K's shadow, and I think that is the way of the
future for Windowze bound people.
For all out there that have used NT and not Win2K - TRY IT.. Services are
handled a LOT better, file management and sharing.. All sorts of new fun
stuff to sink your teeth in to..
As a side note, for the last line of my first paragraph - I also feel that
UNIX cannot be compared in anyway to Windows at this time. Windowze O/S's
are designed for pointy clicky people that prefer to look at a nice GUI
interface, and generally don't have the indepth technical knowledge that a
good UNIX sys admin does..
(If there any NT admins out there don't flame me, I have to deal with it
every day of my life...)
Regards
Mark
The views expressed here are soley those coming out of my coffee deprived
hungover mind.. They do not express those of my employers, though I'm sure
they agree :^)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 07:00
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Oracle on NT runs as
ONE PROCESS
with
MULTIPLE THREADS
for performance reasons (no more
need for shared memory....context switches
are a LOT less expensive, etc.)
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 12:51 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Hi, Mark,
Async I/O is available on Windows, at least NT. It's not an easy topic. If
you
think you already know enough about operating systems in general, I suggest
you
read David Solomon's "Inside WindowsNT". For a lab test, launch Performance
Monitor on your NT box and look at the counters for Cache.
I'm not sure by "single thread management" whether you mean NT can't have
multiple processes or Oracle on NT runs as one thread. The former is
obviously
wrong. The latter is a design issue inside Oracle Corporation and the
question
as to why was asked on this forum before without an answer (without an
answer I
can remember, that is).
Yong Huang
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you wrote:
Asynch I/O on a Windowze box? supresses a snigger...
To the best of my knowledge there are no Windows based system that can take
advantage of this, single thread management can be enough a problem
sometimes..
But, I may be wrong.. List?
__________________________________________________
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ <http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/>
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
<http://www.orafaq.com>
--
Author: yong huang
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Sam P. Roberts (ZADCO ITIS)
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fat City Network Services -- (858) 538-5051 FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from). You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).
