I totally agree with Niall and Cary. One small addition is: Excellently tuned (designed, developed, implemented) system will run 2-times faster on the 2-times faster hardware, will it? I mean, if one vendor can produce faster HW application runs faster on it. On faster platform users receive faster response time. PS If faster HW price is lower then competitors ? Jurijs +371 9268222 (+2 GMT) ============================================ Thank you for teaching me. http://otn.oracle.com/ocm/jvelikanovs.html On 2005.01.14 16:13:05 oracle-l-bounce wrote: >When I was at Oracle, many, many customers would ask me "privately" which >platform really is the best for running Oracle. The honest answer was that >I've seen Oracle run really well on just about every platform there is, and >I've seen Oracle run really poorly on just about every platform there is. >The number one ingredient in the performance of Oracle is whether there's a >PERSON in the system who has the will and the skill to make it run >efficiently. If you have that, you can run Oracle on anything. > > >Cary Millsap >Hotsos Enterprises, Ltd. >http://www.hotsos.com >* Nullius in verba * > >Upcoming events: >- Performance Diagnosis 101: 2/23 Houston, 3/16 Salt Lake City >- SQL Optimization 101: 2/7 Dallas >- Hotsos Symposium 2005: March 6-10 Dallas >- Visit www.hotsos.com for schedule details... > > >-----Original Message----- >From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >On Behalf Of Niall Litchfield >Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 7:18 AM >To: jkstill@xxxxxxxxx >Cc: mgogala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; zoran_martic@xxxxxxxxx; >oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: Curioser and Curiouser > >On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:00:16 -0800, Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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. > >FWIW turning on directIO (I have also setup for async io but here it >is LGWR that is too slow) brought the FC3 score down to 84s which is >slower than winXP, but I'm prepared to believe that this is probably >about as good as it gets for this particular script - and quite >possibly unnoticeable to end users. > >> 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. > >So in fact not the same at all :). > >Its worth noting that my results are exactly worthless for comparing >linux and windows as yet. One *might* conclude that the lgwr process >on FC3/ext3 is less efficient than the lgwr process on Windows/NTFS, >but that is about it. > >I'd actually expect Linux to do better in a controlled test of >identical databases suffering similar external load and a real world >mix of ddl and dml - i.e. something similar to Jared's anecdote. In >particular someone on this thread mentioned scalability and I *expect* >the mutli-process/shared memory architecture of *nix to do better than >the private memory/multi threading architecture of windows. > >Actually I'd suggest one more thing. That in both cases the gains from >tuning far outweigh the innate platfom differences. If this is >consistently the case - and I have to confess that I expect it to be - >then the question one should be asking is not (which is faster linux >or windows) but how well do I think this thing is tuned? > >-- >Niall Litchfield >Oracle DBA >http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com >-- >//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l > >-- >//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l