×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ask Slashdot: On Oracle and Linux

Cliff posted more than 15 years ago | from the how-is-it dept.

Linux 243

Dirk Elmendorf asks: "A company I work with is looking at using Oracle as the database backend for a number of large scale intranet applications. They would prefer to go with Oracle under Solaris. I voted in favor of Oracle under Linux. They think that it isn't stable. Can anyone out there provide me proof or testimonials that will help me choose Linux?" How does the Linux version compare with the NT and Solaris versions of Oracle?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

243 comments

Oracle on linux... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968192)

we had an oracle representative at our monthly LUG meeting last month...and he told us that oracle was faster on linux than NT and that he wasnt supposed to tell that (but they benchmarked it..) and when asked about linux vs solaris he didnt want to comment and said it was up to the client ;)...but id say go with linux! (but i dont know anything about databas so dont base you desision on me ;P)

i wont say my name cause i dont want that person to know who quoted it =P (the truth is out there hehe:)

64 vs 32 bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968193)

Is Oracle available for Linux on Alpha or Sparc? If not, Sun's 64-bit hardware would probably win for a large DB.

Get a clue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968194)

Solaris runs on Sparc and x86.

Linux runs on Sparc, X86, Dec Alpha, PPC, StrongARM, MIPS and other architectures.

Why do you call Linux a "pc" operating system?

Think on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968195)

Minor correction---RAID is supported, as is some (more every day, it seems)
HW raid support. BTW, for a small server, The software RAID
under Linux works quite well.

Solaris vs. Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968196)

Personally I'd go with Solaris for the sole reason of much cooler hardware.

Stability isn't much of an issue between the two, the only reason I'd give Solaris a thumbs up is that the Sun hardware _tends_ to be more reliable, and really in the end... your OS is only as stable as your hardware. (except NT of course, which is crap :)

So if deploying Oracle on Solaris means nice new Sun boxes I'd go with that, if they mean Solaris on x86 - ick - get linux... better device support.

--A



Think on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968197)

> Linux does rule for the home PC, or for the ISP, but it's missing so many basic elements, like LVM, RAID

Ummm... I've been running a production server with kernel-based software RAID for, oh, probably two years now. (Current uptime 392 days, but it was already running RAID before that reboot.) Or is that not what you mean? It seems to me that hardware raid support is handled by the standard scsi drivers.

I won't argue anything else you said though.

ttyl
srw

Get a clue! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968198)

Heh. My experinces with non-Intel Linux boxes
have _not_ been positive. Intel receives the
bulk of the testing/debugging attention, since
some huge percentage of Linux users use it
exclusively. The other platforms are thus
less stable.

Why Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968199)

Agreed. If you can get Solaris and (Ultra)sparc hardware, I'd definitely go with that. It's a bit more stable than Linux on Sparc (Our university is running huge labs and hundreds of users with Xconnetions on Solaris, which I don't think linux could handle as well.) I'm sure Oracle8 is more mature under Solaris, probably leading it to be more stable. That's not to say that there would be problems with Linux, but why use it if you don't have to.


----

That's pretty darn foolish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968200)

-------------
I would not put mission critical stufff on Linux/Oracle before I see a strong indication
that Oracle will continue to support it and
a few more releases down the line.
-------------

If nobody puts Oracle on a Linux machine, what incentive would Oracle have to continue its development?

Why not shoot yourself in the foot with a bigger gun?

What's the rest of your environment like? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968201)

Is the rest of your intranet a solaris operation?

Then the perennial solaris/linux NFS bug will screw
you royally, and you'll spend months getting
conflicting reports from everyone if/that
it has been fixed.

But if you have a pure linux intranet, then do -not-
introduce a solaris machine onto it. NFS will
silently corrupt your files. Your backups will
be corrupt. You will be screwed.

Suns are flat-out better machines than the flaming
intel kludge you'll probably be running linux
on: scalability, peripherals, support, whatnot. If
somebody else is paying, the difference in price
is not an issue.

Remember, unix was a crock rescued by sun hardware,
x86 was a crock rescued by linux.

Ok have any of you actually USED Oracle on Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968202)

I'm a Linux fan but installing Oracle on Linux has proven to be a serious pain in the ass. The installation doc from Oracle must be about a hundred pages. Even after reading it the damn sucker won't link correctly. Sybase at least has a nice rpm.

-AC

Oracle Client On Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968203)

I, for one, have tried a dozen or so times to simply get the stupid oracle client on linux to connect to a remote machine with no luck...

If anybody wants to help me on this, email me: sboger@marcus-online.net

Apache+PHP3+Oracle do rock though...... the boss gets wet over a database-enabled website with full scripting for the price of a pc....

-Steven S. Boger
sboger@marcus-online.net

Linux, Oracle & Network Appliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968204)

Our company is looking at running Oracle on Linux Intel based machines and having the database on a Network Appliance Filer. From what I understand, the performance of the Net App is excellent, the reliablility is fantastic (no need to fsck the drives) and you can restore the databases quickly.
Inexpensive Linux machines can be combined on the front end and added when needed for performance.

The only drawback that I see is the price upfront for the Net App (but is it that much more than a Sun 450?)

Platforms (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968205)


I won't bother with any ideas of NT being anything more then a fileserver for dummys.

As for the Solaris vs. Linux Oracle editions. I am running both right now. The Solaris is in production mode. The linux is just there for dabbling with. Performance seems comparible between the two. But, Enterprise features are not available. Particularly in parrallel servers.

This is a must have in a worldly networked db environment. I run one server in Hearndon VA and one in San Jose CA where they act as one. From any designated point on the net, if I can't get to one, I connect to the other. They are essentially the same. I sleep well at night.

I can't see how you might do this with Linux right now. So, one point for Solaris ( even x86 ).

Also, I trust Solaris just a wee bit more. Solaris has been a rock since its existence. I don't consider Linux stable pre 1997. So, one more point for Solaris for the sake of my personal faith.

My next step in the Oracle platforms is to try the Linux version on FreeBSD 3.1 under its Linux emulation. Tricky ? This is mostly because I haven't met anyone who's tried it yet. If anyone reading this has, drop a reply on how it went. I don't think I'll have time for it for another month or so.

Linux, Oracle & Network Appliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968206)

Our company is looking at using Linux machines on the frontend and Network Appliance on the backend for an Oracle setup. From what I understand the performance of the Net App is fantastic and the reliablility is excellent (no need for fsck, fast restores from backup). The inexpensive Linux machines can be added to improve performance when needed. The only drawback that I can see is the upfront cost of the Net App (but is it really that much more than a high-end Sun machine?)

I have, worked great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968207)

I don't know what you are doing wrong. My
Oracle/Linux install worked flawlessly.

I developed a Perl DBI/DBD Oracle CGI app using
Linux and Oracle and moved it to the customers
HPUX/Oracle system without a single hiccup.

So there!

-- cary

Go back to sleep (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968208)

Oracle does not run on Linux/Alpha.

Oracle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968209)


So you broke your computer and blamed the operating system?

rescued by sun hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968210)

uh... i guess PDP-11 and Vaxen didn't have anything to do with Unix then..

my mistake.

Linux is just as viable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968211)

We've done Oracle on Irix, Solaris, DEC Unix, and NT as well as on Linux. Our experience has been that the bang for the buck goes to the Linux port of Oracle -- hands down.

Oracle on Linux screams. We have had no problems at all with its stability.

Unfortunately, a big piece of selling a solution is supportability -- and until Oracle officially supports its Linux port it will continue to be a hard sell.

Because of this, all of our production systems run Oracle on Solaris and DEC Unix, but our entire development environment is on Linux.

Why Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968212)

Just wondering, how many of the Linux zealots out here who recommend Linux for running Oracle have actually run Oracle on Linux? I want to hear from someone who has built a successful DBMS backed web service with Oracle + Linux.

You see, I am a risk averse person. Why should I put mission critical stuff on an untested platform. We all know that Oracle works great on Solaris, can you say that about Oracle on Linux? I don't know, don't forget that this is the FIRST release of Oracle for Linux and I believe it is not tested as much as on Solaris. Also, note that Solaris is the main development platform for Oracle.

I am not here to flame. Linux is much better server platform than NT, but Solaris and SUN hardware aren't that bad. If you must/want to run it on PCs, of course, I would choose Linux over NT any time. PC might be a good choice if you know off hand that a Quad Xeon will fulfill all your needs (but then, a Quad Zeon machine isn't much cheaper than a Unix box with similar power). But if you need more power than that then a unix box like sun, hp and sgi are obvious choices ...

(And no one should run NT :p)

No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968213)

Oracle Linux port (as well as all commercial Linux software) run on Linux for Intel only!

And I would never choose UltraPenguin over highquality and well supported OS such as Solaris. When there is a high quality, up to date, and well maintained UltraSparc Linux distribution from RedHat or Debian, I would just stick to solaris.

Because ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968214)

All commercial Linux software run on Intel boxes only. Can you run Oracle on non Intel Linux boxes? No.

That's pretty darn foolish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968215)

I would never place mission-critical systems onto any "new" operating system, database or application until someone else has implemented it. Most companies will probably first test it on small deployments and non-mission-critical applications. Oracle on Linux is brand new and problems may appear with scalability, portability of applications, database migration and future support. Many of these issues are not fully resolved yet.

1-2 more years is required before Oracle on Linux can truly be implemented in mission-critical applications.

Besides, I would risk my job on Internet testimonials.

Correction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968216)

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say.

.
( Switch to Flat mode | Reply )

(Warning:this stuff certainly is beta right now)
No!
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 23, @12:03AM EST
Oracle Linux port (as well as all commercial Linux software) run on Linux for Intel only!

And I would never choose UltraPenguin over highquality and well supported OS such as
Solaris. Until hen there is a high quality, up to date, and well maintained UltraSparc Linux
distribution from RedHat or Debian, I would just stick to solaris.

That's pretty darn foolish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968217)

Besides, I would **not** risk my job on Internet testimontials.

Linux, Oracle, Mirroring and Striping (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968218)

I am an Oracle DBA.
At home, I have a Redhat 5.2 running an Oracle 8 database, which is mostly around for practice. Very easy install, just like any other *NIX install if you've installed Oracle before. But for performance that scales well under load, it isn't about Linux vs Solaris.

To perform well under load, you need to be able to hook up lots of disks and MIRROR and STRIPE across all the disks to minimize I/O bottlenecks. So you choose the solution that makes Raid 1+0 available. You can get very sophisticated and reliable storage servers from Sun that are up to the job. I don't see the similar options for Linux: I have 2 disk drives but don't see any way to stripe them. Unless you can get a controller card that does it all in firmware. So while I enjoy fooling with a Linux based Oracle at home, the production sites I've supported have used Solaris, HPUX or AIX, and I can't fault them for it... these boxes mirror and stripe which is what is needed to get optimal i/o performance.

Maturity... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968219)

Doesn't really matter, since Oracle likes RAW disks better than filesystems anyway.

Solaris over Linux, Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968220)

I'd have to pick Solaris over linux because of security reasons. Lack of source for Solaris = less hacks available. Just something to consider, definitely not the only factor.

rescued by sun hardware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968221)

And how many PDP-11's have you seen running UNIX lately?

FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968222)

1. As previous posters have pointed out, Oracle EE for Linux is available (8.0.5.1). O8i is due out shortly (demoed at LinuxWorld)

2. Oracle is using cutdown Linux 2.0.x during beta of Raw Iron project on HP and Dell hardware.

3. You can get support for Oracle on Linux today. If you have paid for the license and the support contract, you can call in for support. It is supported the same as every other platform.

Beowulf bluster or Win98 for Oracle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968223)

Couldn't help it people... A beowulf cluster with Oracle running on it would be pretty cool.
BTW, if you really want to knock the socks off of your boss, ask him if he wants to run Oracle on Windows98. I think that would be k-cool. Maybe even 3l33t. What do you think?

Sun Hardware vs PC Hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968224)

Their appears to be some myth going around that Sun Hardware is somehow to "PC" hardware..

I will spell it out for you right here, that is completely false.

Perhaps 10 years ago when RISC systems had really the only quality SCSI controllers and quality HD as well as ECC ram that may have been the case.

Today, sun user wake up and smell the CPU cycles.

PC servers sport the same or better SCSI controllers, Video, ECC RAM, 10,000 RPM HD's etc. etc. etc.

Just compare the Ultra Sparc 10 to say a comparable VA Research machine.

$8510 $9995
UltraSparc 10 VA Machine
1 EIDE HD 8.4GB SCSI HARDWARE Raid 30GB
1 360MHz CPU Dual PII 450MHz
256MB RAM ECC 256MB RAM ECC
none 4mm Tape 12GB native
none 550VA UPS
none RAID Controller
none Hot Swap RAID
17in Monitor none
none Dual SCSI Controller

I think you can agree you get a hell of a lot more for your money with VA then you get with Sun and this is considered a workstation by Sun.

A Workstation from VA is $3895 with dual 500Mhz PII processors.

We ordered a Sun Ultra 10 not unlike the above and my PII 300 workstation kicks the crap out of it in every respect and was 50% the price. That is when we finally got it after Sun told us they were switching to Oracle Finacials so they would be delaying our order by 30 days (It was over 45 days late).

As far as the OS, I had that Sun box crash on me twice in two months which is about a projected 12 times more often than linux has crashed on me in 4 years. I can say that cause I know that linux has crashed on me twice. In 4 years....

So aside from the fact that Linux in pretty much every measurable respect is twice the Unix of Solaris, and the fact that you can get twice the hardware for the price, which would you choose?

I thought so....

Cheers,

Why Linux? Wake up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968225)

Your Alpha running Linux can kick the a** of a Sun Enterprise 10000 with 64 UltraSPARC CPUs and 64 GB of RAM? ;-P

Why Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968286)

You are absolutely correct. I've long preferred to use FreeBSD over Linux because many implementations are more mature. For example, trying to use linux as an NFS client to Solaris 7 server required modification (unfortunately, these cannot be distributed to other contractual obligations) whereas the FreeBSD implementation worked correctly out of the box.

Besides, doesn't Oracle 8i have it's own operating system, thus making the system most optimum for use as a DB? Seems that throwing a multi-function environment that is doing a single function is a waste. That's why ASIC's are so damn fast when compared to a CPU doing the job, cause they have been streamlined for a very specific thing.

--freak.

It is NOT a religion. It is a tool. Get over it.

Why Linux? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968287)

Just wondering, how many of the Linux zealots out here who recommend Linux for running Oracle have actually run Oracle on Linux? I want to hear from someone who build a successful DBMS backed webservice with Oracle + Linux.

You see, I am a risk averse person. Why should I put mission critical stuff on an untested platform. We all know that Oracle works great on Solaris, can you say that about Oracle on Linux? I don't know, don't forget that this is the FIRST release of Oracle for Linux and I believe it is not tested as much as on Solaris. Also, note that Solaris is the main development platform for Oracle. I'd say.. if you want to run Oracle, a unix box like sun or HP should be a _safe_ choice.

My Oracle/Linux experience (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 15 years ago | (#1968288)

I have worked for 5 years on Oracle running on a variety of platforms.

I currently run Oracle 8.0.5 on Redhat 5.1 on a P100 with 64 mb ram.

I have had no problems at all running Oracle on Linux. Since Linux is a great OS there are no issues there. Oracle runs quite fast and I have noticed no performance issues. Currently, I run Apache 1.3.4 and I use Java servlets to access the Oracle database.

So in terms of performance and reliability I woudl say for small to medium sized databases, Linux/Oracle runs great.

Another issue is features.

Right now the version of Oracle available for Linux is only the Standard version not the Enterprise version. Therefore a number of features are not found on the Linux Oracle server. In most cases this is not an issue since the features you get are only used in certain special situations, ie. Parallel Server.

So if these extra features are important, then this will be much more of an issue than performance/reliability.(For a list, check the Oracle page for details)

in terms of RAW performance of Oracle and Linux
on Intel platforms, check this URL out for some
impressive numbers

http://www.torrent.com/press/intelopenworld.htm

hope this helps!

Christopher Fitch
http://www.tacticsus.com

Linux could be fine for smaller applications (4)

anewsome (58) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968291)

We use Oracle almost exclusively at my company. My thoughts about Oracle on Linux is that 3rd party apps are lacking (hot backup, etc). And that if your application gets big at all, you'll have real trouble making Linux work on 64 processor boxes (if you succeed at all).

Sun can handle this without any problem. Also, as a shop who runs a very large Oracle application on non-Sun hardware, I can tell you that it is no fun trying to Oracle to fix something on their non-favorite platform.

New patches, fixes and product introductions for Oracle server will always happen first on Sun and sometimes that can be a real buzzkill.

My $1.59 worth (if that).

--Aaron Newsome

Different spin on your question ... (3)

whoop (194) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968293)

Where might one find the source for this stat, that 60% of oracle servers ship with Linux?

Register windows (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968294)

Can you say "Register Windows?"

Of course -- very useful to decrease the performance loss due to context switching. Completely pointless in tasking system with one application running, and doing large amount of display output through the driver in kernel, but things of that kind don't run on sparcs.

Maturity... (1)

spacey (741) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968299)

A lot of filesystem operations are significantly faster on linux then on solaris.

Linux gives you more money and a better selection of hardware support (vs. Solaris/x86) to implement a full-scale oracle server. It also gives you additional cash to contribute to a caching* RAID controller (DPT, Myles...) and extra disks.

*Oops. No pun intended there.

-Peter

Oracle on LInux (1)

spacey (741) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968300)

Till then Solaris or NT is probably the safest bet.

Oracle on NT is not a safe solution. More then 10 to 1 DBA's on the oracle list curse the day their bosses put their database on NT. The general advice is that you should be prepared to reboot the system at least once a week or else your database will crash on you. Because of NT, apparently, since the DB2 sales/marketing folks at IBM have similar stories about their NT products.

Considering the experience of both of these companies in making reliable servers I have to blame NT for the crashes, since at least one of oracle or NT should be able to code a stable server for NT.

I have heard exactly 1 (one) testimonial that oracle on NT is stable, but not transaction count to back that up.

It's far from a safe choice.

-Peter

Oracle stability and speed vs. NT or solaris (4)

spacey (741) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968302)

OBstability: so far it hasn't crashed on its own volition in my installation, or in that of a friend of mine. I'm doing very small stuff. Sean, what about you?

OBSpeed: People doing informal speed tests on linux/oracle vs nt/oracle on the same hardware seem to show about a 3-5x speedup under linux.

Also solaris/x86's filesystem speed tends to be a lot slower then linux/x86 - same hardware. I expect that linux would be an ideal database server for many GB of data, as long as the SGA doesn't have to get over a GB or so (these are different things - one is disk space, the other memory. Both are dependant on the expeceted use profile of the database). This is an *estimate* from people I've spoken to - I'm not an oracle expert myself... I'm just learning how to program for it, etc.

Blow the extra money you'd have payed for a SPARC on a caching scsi controller and mirror all of your drives, and you'll have an increadibly reliable and fast server.

-Peter

Partial BZZZZZT! (4)

spacey (741) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968303)

We use Oracle almost exclusively at my company. My thoughts about Oracle on Linux is that 3rd party apps are lacking (hot backup, etc). And that if your application gets big at all, you'll have real trouble making Linux work on 64 processor boxes (if you succeed at all).

Well, Spectra Logic gave me a demo of Alexandria (the backup product that claims the fastest network backup. In spec'ing it in the past it looks like a great product). That demo cd has the following printed on it:

Includeing... Hot Oracle Backup!

Look at spectra logic's home page [spectralogc.com] if you want more inf.

(Disclaimer - I don't work with or for them - I just think their product is worth evaluating).

As for multi-processor - well sun is still behind SGI for that degree of scaleability. If you're intereseted in going to 64 CPU's then go SGI or wait until a big vendor adds patches to linux to make it do 64 processors well. Or gives davem or alan cox a 64+ cpu box to use. Don't hold your breath for the latter ;-)

also...

New patches, fixes and product introductions for Oracle server will always happen first on Sun and sometimes that can be a real buzzkill.

But not on solaris/x86. This is one of the lowest platforms to oracle (at least in my experience in trying to get oracle (tm) consultants to put financial software on it). It seems that linux-specific patches do come out quite quickly. And the oracle 8i pre-release server for linux and sparc/solaris should supposedly arrive at around the same time.

Sparc/solaris is definetely the unix development platform for oracle, but linux is hot right now.

-Peter

take the price angle (1)

TedC (967) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968305)

Take the price angle -- it's your only hope.

I work for a large retailer, and we're running one of the largest customer databases in the world on Solaris and Oracle. It's rock solid.

TedC

Rock solid except for this (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968310)

For its primary use: a database, web, dialup,and email server, Linux is rock solid. If you want to get into esoteric uses like memory hogging video applications it crashes like an egg. The VM crash bug in 2.2.* is pretty horrible and not a big enough problem to get fixed by Linus.

The IRQ lockup in 2.2.* is another monster bug. It got better in 2.2.3 but still happens during extremely rapid I/O shuffling like I was doing on Sunday. Crash, burn, heeyah, over and over and over and over again and not so much as a bedtime story from Linus.

Hardware NOT the same cost, what planet are you on (1)

Kestrel (1301) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968311)

I don't know what little Universe you are living in, but for people on a limited budget, Solaris is not anywhere near the same cost as far as hardware goes. Solaris is pig dog slow on Intel stuff compared to Linux. If you have to go with small to mid sized equipment, Linux will save you a bundle.

And don't arrogantly assume that some one would choose Linux simply for "religious" reasons. My college choose Linux for stablity/cost reasons. As long as Solaris runs so poorly on Intel boxes and Sun wants rediculous amounts of money for their boxes, we will never be able to afford to use Solaris.

There is a reason people have become so religious about Linux, and it ain't marketing, buddy.

Oracle + Java (1)

MichaelKVance (1663) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968313)

I develop a Java app using JDBC and Oracle's Type 4 driver, tied into the old Oracle 8 pre-release for Linux. I've never had a problem, and it is very fast.

m.

Same Situation (4)

ChiefArcher (1753) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968314)

I was in the same situation.. We started out with Oracle on Dec Unix... Since Dec got bought out by Compaq, we decided to move to a different platform..
The choices were solaris, and linux.... We choice linux because if we needed to upgrade, it was just a standard PC.... you can buy thoses a dime a dozen.... Solaris on the other hand.. gots lots of $$$ to upgrade..
DELL put us together a nice RedHat Certified PIII with a nice raid controller..... (rackmountable!)..

Email me if you need help in the process

ChiefArcher

Platforms (1)

rswelch (1771) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968315)

No Oracle expirence, but on a X86 I would tend to favor Linux over solaris as I think Linux does have better HW support than solaris does. Plus I won't even start to do anything on a Solaris system until it's had the recommended patches applied (There's some really scary things that are broken there in Solaris). I actually think the Linux environment is more stable.

Considering you can get RAID solutions for Linux and it does work nicely with Network Applicance boxes I don't think that linux would be such a bad choice.

-randy

Solaris vs. Linux (1)

rswelch (1771) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968316)

One note on the Veritas and RAID. Do NOT let that be your security blanket. One of the servers at work went south and left the system completely unrecoverable. I had heard that it was a mismatch of the Veritas file system and the RAID.

If I had my choice of journaling file systems, I'd go with AIX's JFS. That is a easy to configure and *solid* (in my expirence) file system. I wish IBM would port it to Linux. I'd even pay $ for it.

-randy

Why Linux? Wake up! (0)

rbf (2305) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968317)

My Compaq/DEC Alpha running Linux can kick your SPARC's A** any day!!!

And you can quote me too! :-D



"rbf"

--
ALPHA POWERED and loving it!

64 vs 32 bit (1)

rbf (2305) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968318)

It's not yet available for Alpha Linux, but is being worked on. Oracle for Tru64 (formerly Digital UNIX) is the fastest Oracle platform anywhere!



"rbf"

--
ALPHA POWERED and loving it!

Go back to sleep (1)

rbf (2305) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968319)

It's on it's way... And there is Tru64 (formerly Digital UNIX), which is the fastest Oracle platform anywhere!

Why Linux? Wake up! (1)

rbf (2305) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968320)

Compaq has done more for Alpha in the last year then DEC ever did! Compaq even has a page listing which AlphaServer systems are ready to run Linux! Or did you miss the fact that they sent Linus a AlphaServer DS20 for Linux development just a few weeks ago???

I think my statement was far from being "a bigger dick statement".

'Nuff said.


"rbf"

--
ALPHA POWERED and loving it!

Maturity... (3)

sheldon (2322) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968324)

You learn it eventually....

Let's analyze this a bit.

How much are you going to save going with Linux over Solaris? Maybe $600, the price of a Solaris license. Considering hardware and database software is going to be the same price no matter which solution is chosen.

Is Linux signifigantly better than Solaris? No.
Is the version of Oracle available for Linux signifigantly better than that for Solaris? No.

In fact the opposite is true. Solaris is signifigantly better than Linux as a server platform, and Oracle has been available for Solaris for a signifigantly longer amount of time than Linux, which generally equates to a more stable product.

I'm having a hard time trying to identify what you see as being positive about the Linux solution? You save very little money, and instead increase your risk by a large margin. That risk factor outweighs the initial cost by a huge margin.

Please leave your religion at the door next time you go to work.

Oracle on Linux (3)

glomph (2644) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968326)

Is as stable as it is on other platforms, and more efficient. We are running it on a multimillion-hit site, and it rocks.

Go for it.

DBI/Perl beats OWS, and check out the licensing (1)

judd (3212) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968330)

We've got a test Oracle/Linux box here, and are sufficiently impressed that we've ordered a multiprocessor box to build a production system on.

Two things I'd point out are:

- once you have Oraperl built, you have a great quick-and-dirty web interface happening with Apache/mod_perl/DBI (or other OSS web-db interface of your choice). Oracle's own solution (OWS/Developer 2000/PL-SQL )sucks badly cause of rotten performance, plus you don't have the huge range of existing Perl modules (or Python libraries, or PHP scripts, yadda yadda) to draw on. Oh, and when I had to hack apart someone else's OWS based system a few months ago, I discovered that the text editor in Developer 2000 wasn't even as good as Wordpad for finding and replacing. And you have to compile PL SQL. And it is so SLOOOOOW! And if you don't believe me, see Philip Greenspun. Meanwhile, we can now talk to Oracle on our AIX boxes from the Linux box. Yippee! (Did I mention the appalling huge Java applets that won't even run on a Mac JVM, thus obliterating the point of a cross-platform browser-based solution anyway?)

- there seem to be some licensing cost differences for different platforms, ie it's cheaper per seat on lower spec'd hardware. At least it is for us. All other things being equal, Oracle on (commodity?) Intel linux boxen might be a great deal cheaper than proprietary Unix/Risc solutions.

Maturity... (2)

judd (3212) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968331)

Well - it depends. The original poster's context was "a large scale intranet backend".

My (possibly quite incorrect, I admit) reading between the lines is that it therefore is not that big, or important, and that the main corporate databases livse somewhere else already. So cost may in fact be an important factor. There's other things too: what in-house expertise is there?

I agree that a knee-jerk "Linux, right or wrong" approach is stupid, but you might still be able to build a reasonble case for Linux. So long as we all stick to replying with things we know of ourselves, we can let the original poster make up his own mind.

Anyway, as long as I see management make decisions based on who bought them the best lunch, and which sales droids they trust, I'm not sure that deciding for religious reasons is that bad. :-)

take the price angle - $$!! (1)

bradyh (4324) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968341)

I just want to point out that something like 50% of the businesses in America including my company can't afford Solaris (at least for departmental servers.) Our accounting system gets an HP-UX because we can't do without it but the Art dept needs a database with a lot of disk space and their budget is $15000. Try buying a Solaris for that much...we priced essentially identical systems from Sun and VA Research - it was $13k vs $75k. Once we told the Sun rep our price range he wouldn't even return our calls. Fine...Linux is what I run at home so I'm comfy with it. I know problems will be fixed promptly (at least OS related ones) and I don't have to worry about buying more license if we decide to put another department on it.

Linux' stability (1)

troll (4326) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968342)

Well, Linux' stability is now generally regarded as better than the hardware's stability...

2-gig file limit? (1)

Bolen (4896) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968343)

>Is Oracle-4-Linux immune to the file size barrier?

Nope, it's not immune. However, that's not a real problem. Just combine several 2-gig datafiles in one tablespace. On HP/UX 10.20, I have a DB with an 80-gig tablespace, made of 40 2-gig datafiles spread over several volume groups. Solaris goes beyond 2-gig, and so does HP/UX 11.0 64-bit with 64-bit Oracle8.

>I saw you CAN use raw partitions to use as databases, but I wasn't sure that the option was available for the Linux port..

Right again. Linux /dev/hdXX or /dev/sdXX refer to block (non-raw) device names.

Solaris vs. Linux (1)

Bolen (4896) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968344)

Ok, here are my counterpoints. :)

Mathew> You have to think about what drives Larry Ellison. First and foremost, he wants a successfull company/product/life. Secondly, and not too far behind, he wants to see Microsoft weakened. I think Linux / Oracle are here to stay.

Don't get me wrong, I WANT to see Oracle on Linux grow. But I do sometimes wonder if Larry Ellison isn't a bit too obsessed with Microsoft (like many of us). Then again, the same might be said of Scott McNealy.

Mathew> Not true. Oracle Enterprise Edition, with all included apps, is now available on Linux. This includes failover, ConText, and everything else bundled with Solaris OEE.

What version of Oracle on Linux are you running today?

Are you talking about the Oracle 8i developer release, or an official general release of Oracle8 EE? All I've seen so far is developer releases, but I'll be perfectly happy to be wrong on this point.

Mathew> I don't know what Veritas is, but Oracle on Linux supports Raw partitions.

Veritas is 3rd party JFS and LVM on Solaris, and it's a damn sight easier to use than the Solaris default.

Oracle supports raw partitions, but Linux doesn't. Even if you define a datafile as '/dev/sda1', you are pointing to a block device name.

Finally, Oracle on Linux is only on the x86 platform to date. I'm talking what's usable today, not what may be available tomorrow.

Solaris vs. Linux (3)

Bolen (4896) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968347)

Assuming you have to make a choice Real Soon Now (like by the end of this month), and company's budget isn't tight, Solaris is the better choice today.

Why, you ask?

1. Oracle on Linux doesn't have a long enough track record yet. It was ported just 6 months ago. As quickly as Oracle jumped on the Linux bandwagon, Larry Ellison could change his mind and jump off again.

2. Oracle is developed on Solaris, then ported to other OS's. Any bugs get fixed in Solaris first.

3. Right now, only Oracle Standard Edition is available for Linux. If you need Oracle Enterprise Edition features (table partitioning, object support, advanced replication, parallel server), then you need Solaris.

4. Scalability. If you expect rapid growth in you database application, Sun will scale better than any current Pentium system (E10000 anyone?). Beowulf clustering is not a viable option for Oracle.

5. Solaris has journaled file system and logical volume manager (Veritas), and it will suport raw logical volumes for datafiles.

6. If you plan to use an Oracle application, like Oracle Financials, you can't use Linux, because no Oracle application is certified for Linux yet. Oracle Financials is a BIG pain. It is extremely sensitive to the particular Oracle rdbms release, patch level, application patches, OS release, and OS patches.

Note that these considerations have more to do with the current state of Oracle on Linux, and current Pentium hardware limits, than with Linux per se. Ask this question again a year from now, and I hope to give you a different answer than today's.

Meanwhile, you might still get the Linux foot in the door by starting off using Oracle on Linux for test and development. The good news is, if you do use Oracle on Linux and you find you've outgrown that Pentium, you can easily port your entire database to another Oracle system (Sun, HP, IBM, etc.)

There are glitches (3)

Stick Boy (5386) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968349)


I have installed Oracle for Linux and used it for some fairly grand things. I wouldn't use it again for a little while, however. Once things are right it's okay.

But, it's REALLY finicky. The install program itself would random crash every now and then with odd scripting errors that were never repeatable. You could re-run it immediately after and blow by the same point even though you haven't changed a thing.

The original Oracle for Linux CD came with almost completely non-shared libraries which means most executables, such as tnsping and svrmgr were 3-4 meg apiece. The re-linking process itself was a nightmare. I had tons of problems relinking executables which eventually came down to what I believe was a GNU linker or binutils bug but it could've been the library they distributed.

The documentation for Linux is not awful but not grand either. Documentation for other platforms is significantly better.

For awhile I would have trouble shutting down the database. It would refuse to shutdown with a 'shutdown immediate' even though there were no connections nor any rollback activity. Nothing short of a shutdown force would shut it down. This eventually went away for some unknown reason.

The listener would occasionally core dump for little to no reason (that I could see anyway) under light load.


However, mind you it was pretty damn fast and purred well once things got hammered out. The biggest problem I think is they really rushed to package the thing and just tested it to see that most things work.


And some advice. Don't go anywhere NEAR Oracle Application Server for Linux. Particularly, their piece-o-crap Apache module.. (used to make Apache the web listener).


StickBoy

We'd need more information. (1)

hatless (8275) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968359)

As other have pointed out, the answer depends on your situation. Oracle on Linux is probably stable enough and can probably take you easily to the order of 10GB of data (and likely more) without a hint of trouble if set up properly. But is it the sensible choice?

NT's not a good choice for Oracle unless your IT department is unwilling to deal with Unix. Starting on NT with the intention of moving to Unix is not too smart, either. Administration skills from the NT side--to say nothing of backup scripts and the like--don't move to Unix very well.

For an initial Oracle rollout on Unix, the first rule is to go with what you know. If you have HP/UX, use HP/UX. If you have Solaris, use Solaris.

If your company is new to Unix, I'd go with an established Oracle platform, and Solaris is as good (or better) as any; whatever its performace shortcomings, it's usualy the first to get upgrades, it gets all the apps, it runs on big, scary hardware that can make up for a whole lot of slow code, and you can get decent support.

Oracle on Linux seems fine. Oracle wouldn't release it if they didn't think so. Customers running it seem happy. But I'd venture a guess that most production sites deploying it already had expertise with another Oralce-on-Unix platform. If your company has Oracle expertise and real Linux expertise already, you can probably do it with confidence. If not, I'd recommend Solaris as a better way to kick off a deployment of Oracle. It's better-traveled ground.

Linux, Oracle & Network Appliance (1)

pdm (9380) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968368)

When I was at USA.NET, we used NetApp's for the Oracle databases there, but switched to the EMC symmetrix.

You might want to check them out if your looking at netapp's. http://www.emc.com.

PdM

Maturity... (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968372)


If the $600 cost of Solaris is going to make-or-break your Oracle-solution, maybe you should go back and re-think whether you really can afford an Oracle-based solution.

Also, I've never heard of a "Myles" RAID controller. No Name hardware is probably something to keep away from a production database box.

As far as Linux's hardware suppport, there lots of support, but not everything is completely supported. Some of the kernal SCSI drivers, for example, are marked beta or even alpha. At least if your stuff is on Sun's hardware list, you can be pretty sure that it will work, and you'll have someone to call if it doesn't.

Oracle on NT has been a disaster as far as I know. If you have to run NT, you might as well go with the undocumented API hooks and run MS SQL 7.
--

Flamer! (1)

Lx (12170) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968373)

And now you're telling people Linux is superior due to its stability. Notice a pattern? ;)

Why Linux? Wake up! (2)

Lx (12170) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968374)

ahem? You have a flaw in logic there - the word 'compaq' was included in a bigger dick statement. Doesn't work.

PDP11? (1)

ultra1 (12214) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968375)

More than you think. Hell, I've worked with PDP-11 systems running RT-11 (of all things) as recently as 1995, let alone UNIX.

Ok have any of you actually USED Oracle on Linux? (1)

tommy (12973) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968376)

I admit, it is a difficult installation, but take your time and it should come out ok. I didn't even change the shared memory values in the kernel, although I might when the Oracle box actually goes into heavy production. It could be easier, but do you really expect Oracle to make an rpm?

2-gig file limit? (2)

dimer (13155) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968378)

Is Oracle-4-Linux immune to the file size barrier?

I saw you CAN use raw partitions to use as databases, but I wasn't sure that the option was available for the Linux port..

Anyone know?

Maturity... (1)

raistlinne (13725) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968379)

Question: What is your justification for claiming that a man shouldn't consider his morals while at work?
Disclaimer: I'm not saying that Linux is the right tool for every job.

Different spin on your question ... (3)

BitMan (15055) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968382)

Different spin on your question ...

60% OF ORACLE SERVERS ARE NOW SHIPPING WITH LINUX!

Why? Because M$ does not allow top-tier vendors to bundle Oracle with Windows NT servers. This is designed so end-users are forced to go with M$ SQL Server. But the actual result is that the strategy is backfiring along a different path, people are chosing Linux over NT.

I mean, if you are a Dell, IBM, Compaq or HP customer, what would you choose?

  • An NT server with Oracle SQL post-installed by either a 3rd party or yourself, unsupported by the OEM?
  • Or a Linux server with Oracle SQL pre-installed with vendor support?

The same goes for the other non-M$ DB players, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, IBM, etc...

Trust me, Oracle SQL Server on Linux is MUCH, MORE STABLE than NT! Against, Solaris, that is a completely different question (especially since it scales much higher). But for a workgroup/mid-enterprise server, I'd say you cannot got wrong with Linux.

Don't be surprise when Linux outsells NT PRE-INSTALLED on servers this year.

Why Linux and why not solaris? (1)

JasonB (15304) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968384)

Ummm. More scalable than Sun hardware? Do you really run DB servers with more than 64 CPUs in them? I'd be impressed!

-jason

Hardware NOT the same cost, what planet are you on (1)

JasonB (15304) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968385)

Have you ever put together pricing on Intel-based (becuase that's the only linux platform that Oracle runs on) machies with redundant power supplies and the various hot-swappable components that a good sun server supports?

Oh, and what about the 2-hour replacement part service that sun offers? Which intel-linux vendor will do that at a price significantly less than Sun?

And then you add in the dual, redundant FCAL controllers.....these sorts of things add up quickly.

Sun does not want ridiculous money for their boxes...sun gives you much more than your typical intel-based hardware vendor.

On a limited budget you simply don't get the hardware that is up to the task.

-jason

Flamer! (0)

NighthawkFoo (16928) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968389)

What does the command syntax of Linux and Unices have to deal with stability? (can you say flame bait?)

I became a Linux convert the day that NT crashed five times on me.

Oracle (1)

NighthawkFoo (16928) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968390)

Is there a good reason why it should be less stable under different operating systems as long as it's properly configured?

I became a Linux convert the day that NT crashed five times on me.

The Flamer finally got it (1)

Wee (17189) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968391)

There's no pattern, he's just right. He finally saw the light, and you can't really fault him for waking up to NT's shortcomings. And you really can't use that as an argument against Linux.

I'm not saying Be is any worse or better as far as uptime, but you have to admit it's hard to beat Linux as far as uptime (and if you think about the ratio of uptime vs. number of applications, Be -- much less NT -- doesn't even come close).

-B

Have the best of both worlds! (1)

Yasha (17503) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968392)

Have you considered running it on UltraLinux?

That way, you get the hardware reliability of a sparc, and the ext2 filesystem (which is INCREDIBLY better than UFS).

You can likely run the Solaris version of Oracle DB Server on UltraLinux, since UltraLinux can run Sparc binaries.

No, I haven't done this.. has anyone run Oracle on an UltraLinux box?

---

Ummm.... (1)

Yasha (17503) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968393)

The thing is.. you see.. you are not entirely correct. :)

Intel boxen can be very reliable and stable if you buy the right hardware and have a clue when you configure the boxes.

And with Linux, you can scale extremely well.. imagine 10 8-way boxen running beowulf. Oof.

No, Oracle doesn't support beowulf configurations, but generically, Linux is extremely scalable.

I've installed Linux on an 8-way PPro.. at last I checked, it was rock solid and serving database queries like lightning (Using Informix).

So, although commodity Intel hardware is crap.. yes.. I agree there.. there are non-commodity boxen out there which still rate better price/performance than Sparcs that light the world on fire.

---

Oracle and future support. (1)

GreyFauk (18632) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968397)

Ok... right off.. I've never used Oracle on any platform.
I'd just like to point out something that I believe a few of you might have missed.

It seems that Oracle did an inventory of their Corp. Network and found 1400+ Linux machines.
I believe they made a statement to the effect that
they were going full bore on linux support.

Considering how many of their employees run Linux.
I don't think they're going to stop support for Oracle, any time soon.

Then again... what do _I_ know?

Why Linux and why not solaris? (1)

NumberCruncher (19377) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968399)

Ok, I am biased. I want to get that out of the way.

I have used Linux (in fact I am doing so right now), I have used Solaris.

What matters most of all in the application (database) is an excellent system throughput design. You will not get there by slapping a few disks onto an IDE controller and tossing Linux on. You will get there by careful design of the system, looking for and avoiding potential bottlenecks.

Just because a system is a "PC" doesnt mean it is slow by default, and just because a box is a workstation doesnt mean it is fast. I have seen fast PC boxes positively whup the Solaris boxes I have played with, at a large variety of tasks. But then again, as I said, I am biased, so this news was quite entertaining to me.


If you are building a database, you need a striped file system, or enough controllers and spindles to be able to push data through at an acceptable rate. IDE disks are wonderful... for desktop applications. You need the combination of command tag queuing and disconnection that you get with SCSI or FibreChannel in order to realize performance.

Oracle likes reading and writing to raw partitions, so you might want to look at getting a machine and a set of USCSI controllers (4 controllers ought to be reasonable for a small DB). If you use 10k RPM disks, then you need about 2-3 per controller. The 7.2k RPM disks can go about 4 per controller. If you are the least bit interested in not having this thing be slow, then you will not load up the SCSI channels with disks. This is a very bad thing to do, positively kills performance.

If you are running off of a file system, you will want to have a stripe running across you controllers. 4 channels with 4 disks is a 16 way stripe in the making, and you should be able to push 160 MB/s peak through that with the 7.2kRPM disks. Depending upon the size of the reads and writes, you might be able to get a sizeable fraction of that, though databases tend to do things in tiny 1k or so blocks.

Then you need enough memory for the database to be partially cacheable... I tend to indicate erring on the too large side if at all possible. Any extra ram will initially be used up by disk cache, and subsequently, by an application or 3.

Further, you need to get data in and out of the system, so you probably need multiple ethernets. Now I know Linux can effectively load balance across its physical media, as can IRIX (I told you I was biased), but I dont think Solaris can.

Finally, you have to ask yourself will this database get really large, or will it start requiring massive reorganization of resources to support it... building too small a solution can kill most any project in its infancy, building too large a project ... You need to make sure that your solution can scale with the problem requirements. As I said, I am biased. If the solution never has to scale, all of this can be done on Linux. If the solution has to scale, you need scalable hardware. I would look into other vendors than just Sun at that point :-)

It depends what you mean by "large scale". (1)

irix (22687) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968408)

It depends what you mean by "large scale".

FYI, I've used and maintained Oracle on IRIX, NT and Digital Unix.

Oracle tends to have the same (major) bugs across the different *nixes, so I wouldn't be too concerned about that.

I would stay away from NT becuase the O/S can't stay up worth a shit.

Aftern that, I would check out how much you want the box to scale. The Intel x86 architecture is not good when it comes to large scale h/w configurations.

If you are going to need to go there, then consider Solaris on Sun H/W. otherwise, the price of Linux/Intel is hard to beat.

Solaris vs. Linux (1)

mchappee (22897) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968409)

I have some issues with your post:

_______________Bolen Said____________
1. Oracle on Linux doesn't have a long enough track record yet. It was ported just 6 months ago. As quickly as Oracle jumped on the Linux bandwagon, Larry Ellison could change his mind and jump off again.
______________________________________

You have to think about what drives Larry Ellison. First and foremost, he wants a successfull company/product/life. Secondly, and not too far behind, he wants to see Microsoft weakened. I think Linux / Oracle are here to stay.

________________Bolen Said____________
3. Right now, only Oracle Standard Edition is available for Linux. If you need Oracle Enterprise Edition features (table partitioning,
object support, advanced replication, parallel server), then you need Solaris.
_________________________________________

Not true. Oracle Enterprise Edition, with all included apps, is now available on Linux. This includes failover, ConText, and everything else bundled with Solaris OEE.

_______________Bolin Said_________________
4. Scalability. If you expect rapid growth in you database application, Sun will scale better than any current Pentium system (E10000
anyone?). Beowulf clustering is not a viable option for Oracle.
___________________________________________

True. If an eight-way Xeon isn't enough, then definately go with Sun. Although that new K7 with the 200mhz bus and SMP support is looking Goood.

__________________Bolin Said__________________
5. Solaris has journaled file system and logical volume manager (Veritas), and it will suport raw logical volumes for datafiles.
_______________________________________________

I don't know what Veritas is, but Oracle on Linux supports Raw partitions.

Keep in mind that IBM is porting Linux to the RS6000, and HP to the PA-Risc. There has been a stable Alpha port for over a year. The Intel bottleneck is about to become a non-factor.

Right now we run Oracle Linux on an HP Netserver with 4 Pentium Pro processors and 1 Gig RAM. It's a fast little guy, and rock solid. I say 'Go for it'.

Matthew

Why Linux? (1)

noom (22944) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968410)

I hate to disappoint you, but the Sparc chips SUCK. Can you say "Register Windows?" At least Intel chips seem to scale to faster clock speeds pretty well.

Why Linux? (0)

churchr (24226) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968413)

Yeah, but what's the point of that?
I'v actually used Solaris x86, and I found it
silly.

Okay, so if they want to use PC hardware,
make them use Linux.
If they're willing to shell out for Sparc
boxes, Solaris will be fine.

Why Linux? (1)

churchr (24226) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968414)

Why do you want to use Linux so badly?
Is it just religion?

As long as somebody else is footing the bill,
I'd be delighted to work with Solaris over
Linux, just because Sun hardware is cooler
reliable than PC stuff.

Why Linux? (2)

churchr (24226) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968415)

Its not about the chips, its about the IO.

PCs spend most of their time waiting for disk
drives. Watch your CPU usage on a PC sometime,
and you'll notice that its usually 90+% idle,
even under load.

A lot of Sparcs these days have gigabit
backplanes, so they don't spend 90% of their
time waiting for the IO subsystem.

Doh (1)

syncsyncsync (26730) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968418)

When I said RAID, I was referring to the md suite, which is not what a production box would use anyway (not that the multiple disks driver is not looking very good these days, kudos to M.I. and the rest of the team!). I recognize that software raid has been integrated even with the old 2.0.x kernels, but do read linux-RAID sometime... they're still working on it :)

Sorry to spread FUD there. I feel like that ZDnet moron who keeps writing articles about Linux not supporting SCSI or SMP :P

--Sync

Solaris vs. Linux (1)

syncsyncsync (26730) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968419)

I think Linux / Oracle are here to stay.

(Sure.... that's a no brainer :)

Solaris has journaled file system and logical volume manager (Veritas), and it will suport raw logical volumes for datafiles. I don't know what Veritas is

(Imagine that your system dies hard and you have to fsck 100 filesystems. Imagine that it takes less than a minute thanks to intent logging. Imagine vxfs >:)

(Imagine that you could create a frozen-in-time snapshot image of your filesystem for backup. Imagine you could do ONLINE defrag, resize and diagnostics. Again, imagine vxfs. This is not future tech- it's been around for years, and it's been fully implemented in more than one OS for at least a year or so.)

but Oracle on Linux supports Raw partitions. Keep in mind that IBM is porting Linux to the RS6000, and HP to the PA-Risc. There has been a stable Alpha port for over a year. The Intel bottleneck is about to become a non-factor.

(That's a little optimistic for me. You imply that Alpha Linux is just as advanced as i386 linux, and that the same will apply for PA-RISC come Merced time. BZZT.)

Right now we run Oracle Linux on an HP Netserver with 4 Pentium Pro processors and 1 Gig RAM. It's a fast little guy, and rock solid. I say 'Go for it'.

(People will. I won't until it ages a year or so more, but it is an extremely viable future platform. Hell, it's an extremely viable current platform if you don't need to go high-end, and it's AMAZING for low-end hardware configurations.)

(And now cheers to all. I go back to my excessive drinking :)


( --Sync)

Think on it (3)

syncsyncsync (26730) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968420)

I've never used Oracle on any platform but HP/UX, but let me inject a few general observations about Unixes and third party products in general:

Keep your critical systems away from anybody's first releases.

Keep your critical systems off of NT.

There are many fine *nixes out there, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Linux is a fine *nix, but it has too many under-informed zealots that will tell you it's always the OS for the job at hand. It's not always that OS. In sheer years, it is way too young to offer the kind of feature set a more mature *nix might offer (of course it's also too young to offer the entrenched corporate philosophies and 10 years of backwards bug compatibility found in a more mature *nix :)

In short, don't count Linux out, but don't automatically decide to use it because a bunch of Internet 12 year olds tell you it "rool3s". Linux does rule for the home PC, or for the ISP, but it's missing so many basic elements, like LVM, RAID, and a slew of things in the process and memory management department... all these things are in active development (yes, even LVM) but once again... do you want beta software a the box that makes your beeper go off if it goes down?
Keep your eye on Oracle for Linux, though. It's a comer and I hope to be using it within a year :)


--Sync

Scalability would make sun a clear choice. (4)

SmartyPants (27576) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968425)

If your firm had the $$, and most do then Solaris 2.x would be a superior choice for a LARGE system.
you will find a lot more people with solaris sysadmin experience with large solaris systems.

On the other hand if the database is a small one (1G) than a linux machine would be sufficent.

Just think why you choose linux instead of solaris in the first place. is it because linux is 'cool' and flavor of the month ? or is it for cost reasons ?

Try not to pick something just because it will be 'fun' and 'cool' to say you are working on it.

Another question you should ask is what other machines the site has expierence with, because you will probably costing them more on support than what you would save implementing on linux.

I am not saying that linux is bad, just make sure you choose it for the right reasons

My Oracle/Linux experience (1)

Ld Iain (85636) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968431)

Even as I type this I'm Down loading the Enterprise version from oracle. 8.0.5.1 Go get it. Plus I am on the waiting list for an 8i cd version when it comes out in a moth or so. :}
The only problem I have had with version 8.0.5 is the SNMP agents I cant get to work. But, I read today that with the patch and a new TCL kit I can fix that. So I wolfing down some down loasds, patches and upgrades from all over the net. Sorry about the lag Im causeing ;}

Why Linux? (1)

idan (98190) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968433)

We run a couple of Oracle instances on a small
Linux box, with several hundred megs each. While
I can't give comparative numbers (don't use NT
or Solaris), I'd say it performs well, and has
been quite robust.

We *did* have a corrupt disk block a while ago.
That was our only downtime. I'm not sure if it
was Oracle or Linux or hardware. I tend to
blame hardware in this case.

Why not give it a try? I imagine that performance
is dominated by I/O and memory, rather than O.S.
in this case, so if you like Linux, go for it.
Just get a suitable box.

Regards,

-- Idan

Oracle on LInux (2)

enigmatic (122657) | more than 15 years ago | (#1968434)

Oracle on Linux suffers from what all software
does on a first release and is
less stable than for instances on Solaris
and possibly less stable than under NT.

I would not put mission critical stufff on
Linux/Oracle before I see a strong indication
that Oracle will continue to support it and
a few more releases down the line.

Larry is not known making choices he stands by
really. (Anyone remember 4MB Javastations
that would do EVERYTHING) ehe.

But in a few years time Linux/Oracle might be
ready for the mission critical things.

Till then Solaris or NT is probably the safest bet.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...