Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
oracle on unix versus oracle on windows
- Thread starter jaballah
- Start date
SantaMufasa
Technical User
Jaballah,
Your question is similar to asking, "What is more preferred for companies (worldwide) to use: Volkswagen or Mercedes, what are the percentages, and what are their main obvious advantages/disadvantages." Any statements one makes would need to be gross generalities with which others could vehemently disagree.
But, to try and address your question, I shall make some gross generalities (to each of which anyone, including myself, could respond, "Yes, but..."). Generally, companies use Unix-based machines over Windows-based machines for heart-of-the-business, heavily multi-used applications. In organisations with which I work, the companies generally equip their Unix machines with multiple CPUs, more memory, and larger disk arrays when compared to Windows-based machines. Therefore, the Unix-based machines can carry heavier work loads, supporting more users, using more data, and processing at faster speeds when compared to Windows-based servers.
But, generally, Unix-based machines cost incrementally more than Windows-based machines. So, you will often see statistics that the cost-benefit ratios (or cost-per-exectuted-instruction figures) are better for Windows-based servers than for Unix-based machines.
In terms of Oracle processing, generally both platforms are equally stable and reliable.
One issue is that the way you have posed your questions, it is difficult to respond since we do not know that your processing values/goals are. So by-and-large, your questions are "moving targets". Usually, we do not make decisions regarding Unix-versus-Windows-versus-anything-else in a vacuum. We identify processing-performance levels and other topographical requirements first, then identify the ability of various platforms to meet those requirements.
I'm sure that enough information exists on this topic to fill a couple of volumes, but at least these are some general observations that will get you started on your quest.
![[santa]](/data/assets/smilies/santa.gif "[santa] [santa]")
Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA @ 16:32 (04Jul04) UTC (aka "GMT" and "Zulu"), 09:32 (04Jul04) Mountain Time)
Your question is similar to asking, "What is more preferred for companies (worldwide) to use: Volkswagen or Mercedes, what are the percentages, and what are their main obvious advantages/disadvantages." Any statements one makes would need to be gross generalities with which others could vehemently disagree.
But, to try and address your question, I shall make some gross generalities (to each of which anyone, including myself, could respond, "Yes, but..."). Generally, companies use Unix-based machines over Windows-based machines for heart-of-the-business, heavily multi-used applications. In organisations with which I work, the companies generally equip their Unix machines with multiple CPUs, more memory, and larger disk arrays when compared to Windows-based machines. Therefore, the Unix-based machines can carry heavier work loads, supporting more users, using more data, and processing at faster speeds when compared to Windows-based servers.
But, generally, Unix-based machines cost incrementally more than Windows-based machines. So, you will often see statistics that the cost-benefit ratios (or cost-per-exectuted-instruction figures) are better for Windows-based servers than for Unix-based machines.
In terms of Oracle processing, generally both platforms are equally stable and reliable.
One issue is that the way you have posed your questions, it is difficult to respond since we do not know that your processing values/goals are. So by-and-large, your questions are "moving targets". Usually, we do not make decisions regarding Unix-versus-Windows-versus-anything-else in a vacuum. We identify processing-performance levels and other topographical requirements first, then identify the ability of various platforms to meet those requirements.
I'm sure that enough information exists on this topic to fill a couple of volumes, but at least these are some general observations that will get you started on your quest.
Mufasa(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA @ 16:32 (04Jul04) UTC (aka "GMT" and "Zulu"), 09:32 (04Jul04) Mountain Time)
My observations in this (and other) forum: percentage is pretty 50/50, where larger databases tend to reside on UNIX-boxes (see Daves reply).
I personally prefere UNIX, as I haven't seen one Windows-box up and running without reboot for longer than a month, compared to nearly 400 days on the last AIX-box I had a look at (shut down only for major changes...) - but maybe our Windows-servers are not configured correctly, don't know and am in no position to give a statement on that.
Stefan
I personally prefere UNIX, as I haven't seen one Windows-box up and running without reboot for longer than a month, compared to nearly 400 days on the last AIX-box I had a look at (shut down only for major changes...) - but maybe our Windows-servers are not configured correctly, don't know and am in no position to give a statement on that.
Stefan
johnherman
MIS
If it acts like a dog, walks, talks, eats, and sleeps like a dog, and is intensely loyal to its master, like a dog, then I say we call it a dog.
For all intents except lawsuits, Linux is Unix.
-------------------------
Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there !
For all intents except lawsuits, Linux is Unix.
-------------------------
Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side because there is more manure there !
DBAwhosaysNIE
MIS
without question *nix, whether proprietary Unix on RISC or Linux on AMD/Intel, is a better platform for Oracle (or anything else). I can't give you %s off the top of my head but my "significant other" works for Oracle so I'll ask.
the main advantages of *nix are:
scalability - hardware scales much higher though bang/buck is sublinear
reliability - even IF you say Oracle per se is equally stable (maybe but unverifiable due to O/S) and that win* is as stable as *nix (not even close) you STILL have to reboot several times/year to apply patch(es) for exploit du jour (and pray it doesn't trash your system).
security - is your database going to have sensitive information (credit cards, SSNs, etc.)? if so you MIGHT want to consider an O/S that isn't going to force you to reboot several times/year to apply patch(es) to prevent the LATEST way to gain administrator access after which your system may (or may not) work.
honestly, I don't see how the win* camp can claim ANY advantages. the claim that the hardware is cheaper (x86 is cheaper than RISC) begs the ? why pay for win* license(s) when you can run Linux on the same hardware with far better reliability and security?
the main advantages of *nix are:
scalability - hardware scales much higher though bang/buck is sublinear
reliability - even IF you say Oracle per se is equally stable (maybe but unverifiable due to O/S) and that win* is as stable as *nix (not even close) you STILL have to reboot several times/year to apply patch(es) for exploit du jour (and pray it doesn't trash your system).
security - is your database going to have sensitive information (credit cards, SSNs, etc.)? if so you MIGHT want to consider an O/S that isn't going to force you to reboot several times/year to apply patch(es) to prevent the LATEST way to gain administrator access after which your system may (or may not) work.
honestly, I don't see how the win* camp can claim ANY advantages. the claim that the hardware is cheaper (x86 is cheaper than RISC) begs the ? why pay for win* license(s) when you can run Linux on the same hardware with far better reliability and security?
I also vote for Unix, but when the pressure is not too high Oracle on both Windows and Unix is reliable enough. Our developer server on NT 4.0 had more than 500 days uptime. It was switched off to be transported to another room 
The same version with the same hardware on Linux was a bit slower and more buggy, though that were the first Oracle steps on Linux, now it's more mature. As for Oracle on Windows, in most cases the same task may be fulfilled with mySQL or even Access, though managers need famous names
Regards, Dima
The same version with the same hardware on Linux was a bit slower and more buggy, though that were the first Oracle steps on Linux, now it's more mature. As for Oracle on Windows, in most cases the same task may be fulfilled with mySQL or even Access, though managers need famous names Regards, Dima
KenCunningham
Technical User
End game. Oracle was written for *nix. 'nuff said?
I also prefer Unix, but Oracle was not originally written for Unix. The first version of Oracle, released in 1979, was written for the PDP-11 under RSX. It also run on the VAX/VMS under PDP-11 emulation mode.
By 1983 it was re-written in C and released under VAX/VMS and soon after on Unix. By 1985 it had been ported to over 30 platforms.
This is one of the strengs of Oracle, that you are not stuck on a single plaform. You can select the plaform that matches your needs best.
By 1983 it was re-written in C and released under VAX/VMS and soon after on Unix. By 1985 it had been ported to over 30 platforms.
This is one of the strengs of Oracle, that you are not stuck on a single plaform. You can select the plaform that matches your needs best.
Remember that often Unix means Solaris, HP-UX and AIX, that all run on a kind of hardware (in terms of performance, throughput and reliability) that is simply not avalable for Linux or Windows.
Personally I would not attempt a Tb datawarehouse on Intel hardware and would not trust Windows as a mission critical database platform for Oracle.
Stick to your guns
Personally I would not attempt a Tb datawarehouse on Intel hardware and would not trust Windows as a mission critical database platform for Oracle.
Stick to your guns
DBAwhosaysNIE
MIS
not true (except the anti-windoze part, of course)
linux can run on RISC and IBM has even ported it to z (/390) which is the 800lb gorilla "in terms of performance, throughput and reliability".
while the biggest RISC boxes are still considerable bigger than the biggest x86 ones, even an entry level x86 box is pretty darn powerfull and pretty darn cheap.
personally, I do run the production databases for a top 10 website on six dual Opterons. are they as powerful as a p690 or E6800? no way but they easily serve (DB) a 20M+ page/day website and for what a Sun (SPARC) or IBM (p) solution would cost I could buy enough of them to... well, I can't even think of an appropriate analogy but it would be a lot.
if you have the discipline to architect in a way that allows horizontal scaling Linux on x86 (I'm an Opteron believer until something w/better bang/$ comes along) is the way to go. google, anyone?
linux can run on RISC and IBM has even ported it to z (/390) which is the 800lb gorilla "in terms of performance, throughput and reliability".
while the biggest RISC boxes are still considerable bigger than the biggest x86 ones, even an entry level x86 box is pretty darn powerfull and pretty darn cheap.
personally, I do run the production databases for a top 10 website on six dual Opterons. are they as powerful as a p690 or E6800? no way but they easily serve (DB) a 20M+ page/day website and for what a Sun (SPARC) or IBM (p) solution would cost I could buy enough of them to... well, I can't even think of an appropriate analogy but it would be a lot.
if you have the discipline to architect in a way that allows horizontal scaling Linux on x86 (I'm an Opteron believer until something w/better bang/$ comes along) is the way to go. google, anyone?
- Status
Similar threads
