Well, the issue I have with windows is the overhead. I have to agree that a well managed Windows server will run just as well as a well managed Linux server, but there are more wasted resources on windows server, especially Memory. It takes a lot of RAM and CPU just to run the Windows environment that is not required for Linux/Unix. On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Guillermo Alan Bort <cicciuxdba@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > Niall, > > You make good points and talk from a logical point of view. I talk from > my experience alone, and it may very well be that I ran into crappy windows > administrators and good unix administrators, but overall stability of the > system has been always better on unix than on windows as far as my personal > experience goes. This has biased me against windows as a server OS. > > On the other hand, I have similar experiences with HP-UX and have had > more than enough problem with AIX, as well as some weird reactions from the > CRS on linux. On the other hand, as it is far less common for people to be > familiar with Unix and hardcore unix admins are usually very curious people, > they tend to be better at their job. Again, this is my personal experience. > > And here I bring you to MS SQL Server. In itself it's not a bad RDBMS, > it's actually quiet good, however it's amazing how many SQL Servers you find > out there that are not properly configured and maintained. Now, I've found a > few Oracle dbs like that, but far less than SQL Servers o MySQL (which I > must admit have little to no experience with). > > I understand where your rant comes from, this kind of bias against an OS > is uncharacteristic of this list, but please, try to understand where the > bias comes from... > > Oh, and btw, the fact that Oracle released a patch for RedHat speaks to > the openness of RedHat and not to the compatibility of Windows. > > cheers > Alan.- > > > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Niall Litchfield < > niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> subject changed so I can rant. This is my response to the recent thread >> about how to install Oracle in a Windows environment. I've changed the >> thread because I think that the main points were answered before we got >> here. What we then saw was a surprising (for this list) attribution of >> unevidenced or ill thought out suggestions about using Windows as a server >> O/S for Oracle Databases: >> >> <rant> >> >> - Windows platform is not fully compatible with Oracle products so >> these problems always appear. >> >> Really? As opposed to RedHat Linux where Oracle have gone to the bother of >> a kernel patch for the o/s itself. Every major version of Windows has had >> the current or next release of the database certified on it sharpish. >> Similarly look at the certification speed for Oracle E-Business on windows >> compared to (say AIX). >> >> - If your production servers are installed at windows platform ,You >> shouldn't let them to join windows Domain at installation phases, as this >> is >> a wrong decision for running time performance. >> You should use a Workgroup or primary DNS suffix which allow you to >> avoid such problems you may face at joining windows Domain. >> >> Again a statement with no evidence presented. In general AD does a good >> job of policy and security management and certainly a better job than >> managing an estate of Windows servers one at a time. If you haven't got your >> dns management right and tied into the domain (which the latter suggests, >> then you haven't got AD setup correctly) >> >> >> - Clusterware was installed with a domain account. That proved to be a >> fatal mistake when this particular domain the account belonged to was shut >> down as part of a migration project. After a scheduled reboot Clusterware >> wouldn't start at all. End of the story was a complete rebuild of the >> environment using local administrator accounts. >> >> The fatal mistake here would seem to be not correctly identifying the >> dependencies in the migration project. >> >> >> - Windows is just play box it is never for server installation if you >> are using oracle,db2 (I do not whether db2 is avaialble on windows) kind >> of >> big databases. >> >> I must remember to tell that to the ten billion dollar a year >> manufacturing operation that run their multi-terabyte SAP datawarehouse on >> Windows. :) >> >> >> - Oh, and when you have to do maintenance on a DB on a Windows server >> and the IT Security department tells you NOT to log in to ANY server using >> your AD account because there's a virus in the network and we need to >> contain it.. >> >> What has the AD account got to do with this scenario - it makes no >> dfference to virus propagation if you log in as local Admin or a domain >> account with admin rights to the rights inherited by the executable code on >> your machine. >> >> - . and when they have to reboot a production DB server to apply a >> hotfix (which happens a lot more often than unix patches) >> >> - run up2date on your Linux box and count the number of updates released - >> it *will* surprise you. Because Linux admins don't update their servers for >> known security holes in general, and windows admins do is not really a great >> argument for frequency of patches. >> >> - or when they need to reboot the DB server because it's been up more >> than 90 days straight... well, that's when you know the platform you've >> chosen is probably not the wisest choice. >> >> nope that's when you know that the admin doesn't understand the platform. >> I must reboot every 90 days is an admission that something that I don't >> understand is happening. >> >> >> </rant> >> >> I had that <insert name of local controversial fugure> in the back of my >> cab once :) >> >> -- >> Niall Litchfield >> Oracle DBA >> http://www.orawin.info >> > > -- Andrew W. Kerber 'If at first you dont succeed, dont take up skydiving.'