By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,501 Members | 1,859 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,501 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

P: n/a
Rob
Does anyone know if there are any good comparisons between Windows and
Unix performance? Or does anyone have examples of Oracle databases
running large numbers (200+) of concurrent users. I am trying to
investigate what size implementations can be placed onto Windows 2000
/ Windows 2003 as opposed to UNIX but cannot find much data.

Any information would be much appreciated.

Cheers.
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
3 Replies


P: n/a
su**@robtudor.co.uk (Rob) wrote in message news:<cd**************************@posting.google. com>...
Does anyone know if there are any good comparisons between Windows and
Unix performance? Or does anyone have examples of Oracle databases
running large numbers (200+) of concurrent users. I am trying to
investigate what size implementations can be placed onto Windows 2000
/ Windows 2003 as opposed to UNIX but cannot find much data.

Any information would be much appreciated.

Cheers.


As a matter of fact, yes:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...aead7b6&rnum=2

I also would be interested if anyone is running 200+ actual concurrent
users (not just connections) on Windows. I would find it hard to
believe.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Like using http://www.autoweek.com/specials/gal...glietti_04.htm
as a school bus.
Jul 19 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Joel Garry" <jo********@home.com> wrote in message
news:91*************************@posting.google.co m...
su**@robtudor.co.uk (Rob) wrote in message news:<cd**************************@posting.google. com>...
Does anyone know if there are any good comparisons between Windows and
Unix performance? Or does anyone have examples of Oracle databases
running large numbers (200+) of concurrent users. I am trying to
investigate what size implementations can be placed onto Windows 2000
/ Windows 2003 as opposed to UNIX but cannot find much data.

Any information would be much appreciated.

Cheers.


As a matter of fact, yes:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...aead7b6&rnum=2
I also would be interested if anyone is running 200+ actual concurrent
users (not just connections) on Windows. I would find it hard to
believe.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Like using http://www.autoweek.com/specials/gal...glietti_04.htm as a school bus.

I think you are going to get better scalability on Unix over Windows. I did
work for a company and we had a very efficient application (bind variables,
cursor reuse - parse once execute many) and were able to get many more than
200+ concurrent users. There are a ton of variables.

How efficient is your application? (scalable)
Is it more OLTP or OLAP? (ours was OLTP by far)
What is the application doing in some sort of work flow for the application?
How many disks?
How much RAM?
....
We were able to load test up to about 1,500 concurrent users on Oracle 8.0
with our application on a very beefy Windows NT box. On Unix we were able
to get a lot more users; our biggest problem was getting enough client
machines so we could test UNIX!
Jim
Jul 19 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Jim Kennedy" <ke****************************@attbi.net> wrote in message news:<Cqhmc.37933$Ik.2505190@attbi_s53>...
"Joel Garry" <jo********@home.com> wrote in message
news:91*************************@posting.google.co m...
su**@robtudor.co.uk (Rob) wrote in message

news:<cd**************************@posting.google. com>...
Does anyone know if there are any good comparisons between Windows and
Unix performance? Or does anyone have examples of Oracle databases
running large numbers (200+) of concurrent users. I am trying to
investigate what size implementations can be placed onto Windows 2000
/ Windows 2003 as opposed to UNIX but cannot find much data.

Any information would be much appreciated.

Cheers.


As a matter of fact, yes:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...aead7b6&rnum=2

I also would be interested if anyone is running 200+ actual concurrent
users (not just connections) on Windows. I would find it hard to
believe.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Like using

http://www.autoweek.com/specials/gal...glietti_04.htm
as a school bus.

I think you are going to get better scalability on Unix over Windows. I did
work for a company and we had a very efficient application (bind variables,
cursor reuse - parse once execute many) and were able to get many more than
200+ concurrent users. There are a ton of variables.

How efficient is your application? (scalable)
Is it more OLTP or OLAP? (ours was OLTP by far)
What is the application doing in some sort of work flow for the application?
How many disks?
How much RAM?
...
We were able to load test up to about 1,500 concurrent users on Oracle 8.0
with our application on a very beefy Windows NT box. On Unix we were able
to get a lot more users; our biggest problem was getting enough client
machines so we could test UNIX!
Jim


Thanks Jim, I now believe it. In that time frame I wouldn't have even
tried it! I'm still not seeing the performance I would expect given
the hardware, Dual Xeon gigawhateverhertz versus slower multiprocessor
hp's, but the price differential... and what I don't know about
Windows would fill many books... and grid is pushing linux... and I
just haven't personally been able to make any really valid comparison
tests...

The real thing I am troubled by is the idea that commodity hardware
with no good diagnostics and uncertain quality control will affect
databases in unpredictable ways. For example, I have a barely used
W2K OAS10g mid-tier machine that locks up often in the middle of the
night, for no apparent reason. Is there a hardware problem? A
Windows configuration problem (those gazillion updates, what do they
really do)? Does apache make too many files for its poor little file
system? Is there something in Welchia or Sasser that Symantec hasn't
figured out yet? How can I know?

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
William Herschel, who discovered Uranus, wanted to name it "Georgium
Sidus" after the British King George III.
Jul 19 '05 #4

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.