Re: Curioser and Curiouser

  • From: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: mgogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:00:16 -0800

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:27:26 -0500, Mladen Gogala
<mgogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I can answer that, but being that I am a Linux fan, I don't really want to,
> because Win2k (have not tried 2003) was consistently beating FC3 (same
> machine, just as in Niall's case) by 5%-10%. This orange juice must be
> too strong for me.

It must be FD2 config.

I've run the same databases on RH 7.1 and Win2k, with the machines
being identical ( Dell PowerEdge 2550, 2 gig RAM)

Well, not quite identical.  The Win2k box has more disks, and was running
only one database.

The RH box was running 4 databases, 2 very active.

And it was still faster than the Win2k.

The revelation came from the developers from a 3rd party company
that were working in house to upgrade a system.  The 2 databases
they needed to do the migration were housed on my Linux DBA box.

Developers:  "This is fast!  Can we run production on this machine?"

Me:  No.

Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

Other related posts: