Re: Oracle for Windows XP with INTEL inside
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: jkstill@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 09:37:13 +0100
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:34:24 -0700, Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I may have been thinking of Remote Terminal
> Services, which I believe requires the listener
> to be started, as you are not actually on the console
> when you connect to the database.
That used to be true, but is no longer true from 9i.
> As someone else already stated, it is the 'wrong' OS.
>
> Windows complicates everything it touches.
I disagree with the first statement quite strongly, and with the
second statement a bit. Windows does have a number of technical
limitations that inhibit its scalability for more than (say) 150/200
concurrent sessions or utilising more than 1.7gb or so of RAM per
instance. (yes I know about AWE - its horrible). However if you don't
need to exceed the technical limits of the platform there are any
number of situations when it is the 'right' OS. For example
When you don't have *nix skills in-house and do have windows skills.
When you have a windows only infrastructure.
I'm sure that Mogens would argue that the only technically 'right' OS
is VMS. He may well be correct, but infrastructure doesn't get
implemented in a vacuum and making technology decisions on purely
technical factors is probably worse than making technical decisions on
purely business factors.
On the windows over complicates things argument, I suspect that also
depends where you are coming from. Configuring shared memory,
adjusting kernel parameters etc seems to your average Windows admin to
'overly-complicate' things - cos you don't have to - or can't - do
them on that platform.
So windows is more limited yes, that doesn't mean that it is 'wrong' .
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
