Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

**Joel Garry** · Jun 27 '08, 06:20 PM

Re: Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

subs@robtudor.c o.uk (Rob) wrote in message news:<cd6e7d58. 0405050615.5947 cd17@posting.go ogle.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=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&th=511ddc260aead7b6&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.

**Jim Kennedy** · Jun 27 '08, 06:20 PM

Re: Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry@home.comw rote in message
news:91884734.0 405051441.69932 53@posting.goog le.com...

subs@robtudor.c o.uk (Rob) wrote in message

news:<cd6e7d58. 0405050615.5947 cd17@posting.go ogle.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

**Joel Garry** · Jun 27 '08, 06:20 PM

Re: Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

"Jim Kennedy" <kennedy-downwithspammer sfamily@attbi.n etwrote in message news:<Cqhmc.379 33$Ik.2505190@a ttbi_s53>...

"Joel Garry" <joel-garry@home.comw rote in message
news:91884734.0 405051441.69932 53@posting.goog le.com...

subs@robtudor.c o.uk (Rob) wrote in message

news:<cd6e7d58. 0405050615.5947 cd17@posting.go ogle.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 gigawhateverher tz 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.

Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

Windows v Unix Performance on Oracle 9i

Comment

Comment

Comment