| **
Which actually brings me to a queston that I have
had rolling around in my head for quite some time: How many folks out there are
running and Apache/Tomcat combination on a Windows platform? I have used this
approach at times in the past and have had some pretty good luck with it, but
have also run into the resistance to using it.
----- Original Message -----
Newsgroups:
public.remedy.arsystem.general
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 6:53
AM
Subject: Re: Advantages/Disadvantages
between platforms running Remedy
** This is always a thread that gets lots of results, I will
chime in...
Of course, you can run Oracle on Windows as
well.
The Oracle-is-case-sensitive-and-MSSQL-is-not is not true
anymore, you can configure Oracle 9 or 10 as well to be case insensitive and
in MSSQL you can choose either case sensitive or case insensitive collations
to your liking.
Of course you can upgrade some parts of your Unix
system without affecting other parts. But if you run Apache on Windows, you
can upgrade Apache apart from your windows without any problems.
BTW
upgrading a Unix system, say HP-UX 10 to 11, or a Linux system, say RedHat ES
to a higher version, can be a real pain as well. Oh and of course, Will stated
that you can keep your old system and upgrade only the parts that you would
like to upgrade. Of course that is possible, but for instance for the Remedy
Compatibility matrix, not all versions of HP-UX, RedHat or Solaris are
supported, so you would - just as with Windows - have to upgrade your OS from
time to time.
In my opinion there are not that much differences and
one of the things that really count is: are there many people with the skills
for the OS or DBMS of your choice available in your organisation? And of
course you could also take a look at the license and hardware costs between
the different options.
Good luck,
Michiel
On 10/5/06, Will Du
Chene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On
SQL Server vs. Oracle -
Oracle scales better. Consider for a moment
that most of Microsoft's
vision for SQL Server is on a quad processor
box or less. Over 90% of SQL
Server installations have four or less
processors. Anything over 8
processors and your looking at Windows
DataCenter which has an additional
cost to it. Oracle, on the other
hand, has been committed to SMP for quite
some time, and can scale
better. Oracle can run on 'the big iron' as well
as the smaller DL380
that you have stuck over in the dusty server rack
that nobody has
visited in a year.
Oracle typically delivers a higher TPM count then
SQL Server. Now, I admit
that this is somewhat subjective and depends
upon which set of comparisons
(and which vendor wrote them) you read,
but...
Commitment is something else that should be considered. If
you are
planning to run SQL Server, you are committed to the Windows
platform -
period. If you use Oracle, you have freedom to choose - and
you can
migrate if you need to at later date with far more
ease.
In my experience, Oracle is the database of choice for larger
scale
implementations that are expected to get pounded on. SQL
Server
installations typically are the ones that can take some down time
for
reboots and 'hot fix' and 'service pack' applications. I am sure
that
there are exceptions out there, but this is what I have
seen.
On Windows vs. Linux/Unix/*Nix du Jour -
Unix based
operating systems are available in a variety of flavors. One of
these
flavors might fit your specific environment a bit better than
another, so
you have some room to investigate (aka Solaris on Sun hardware
vs
Enterprise Linux on an Intel/Xeon box).
Windows, on the other hand,
is - well - Windows. Windows runs on x86 based
Intel or psuedo Intel
systems. (There once was a verion of NT that ran on
Alpha systems, but
that went the way of the do-do bird) With the exception
of the 64 bit
processors, and perhaps the version that they tried to run
on the
mainframe systems, does Windows run on anything else?
Longevity of an
operating system is something that should be considered as
well. In the
Microsoft world, the customer is expected to upgrade. Windows
NT4 was
end-of-lifed, was it not? Windows 2000 is not that far behind.
There are
no more 'service packs' for it. Now this sort of situation is
going to
make maintaining the platform difficult, so, as a customer, you
are
effectively pushed to the new 2003 platform. Unix however,
is
different.
On a unix platform, you are free to upgrade
individual components of the
operating system as needed. For example, if
the SSH server that you are
using has a known vulnerability, it's
possible to replace it. You can do
this same thing with other key
components of the operating system. It's
not something that is
'integrated' into the operating system. (If you did
not have to upgrade
your webserver because IIS 4 was not being maintained
- would you? Is it
possible to upgrade IIS on Windows NT4 to IIS 6? -
Sounds strange,
doesn't it?)
If someone is considering migrating from Unix to
Windows, I would think
twice. Now I am not saying this to be difficult,
or to slam one or the
other, or even debate which is technically more
'superior'. There are a
number of studies out there which do this equally
well in one way or the
other.
What I am trying to say is that
you're the one holding the paint can, it
would be wise to make sure that
there is a clear path to that door, rather
than getting comfy in the
corner.
If your call center, or user base is going to grow, or if
your going to be
integrating other systems into your installation, these
are considerations
that need to be planned for before you migrate. The
question should not be
'Why not Microsoft?' but rather 'what is the time,
expense, and pain of
the migration actually going to return?' If your
answer is 'it's going to
be easier to manage with tool X' or some sort of
variant thereof, you're
probably going through the motions for the wrong
reason.
Just my thoughts.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Rocky
Rockwell wrote:
> One thin I have noticed on windows 2k server, it
needs rebooting during
> normal operations, it is more like
SOP (this is just what I have seen. Also,
> things disappear (ie:
dlls)) or they get corrupted. We are now on UNIX all
> the way around
(DB,Application, Web) and I have yet to reboot or touch the
> machines
in over 1 year.
>
> *Rocky*
>
> Rocky
Rockwell
> eMA Team – Remedy Developer
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ph#1:
214-567-8874
> Ph#2: 325-884-1263
>
>
>
>
Scott Neeb wrote:
>> We have an initiative at my work entitled "Why
Not Microsoft?". We're
>> supposed to ask ourselves at
critical application milestones if we should
>> contemplate moving
Remedy to the Windows platform. We currently reside
on
>> UNIX with an Oracle database, so Remedy is always being
evaluated as a
>> candidate for the move. They asked me
today if there are any
>> advantages/disadvantages between running
Remedy on UNIX/Oracle as compared
>> to Windows/SQL
Server. I haven't seen any documentation or user
comments
>> anywhere on the internet, so I was wondering if any of
you have any prior
>> experience with this type of move, and if
you've seen any advantages or
>> disadvantages to this type of move
as it relates to the ARSystem. Thanks
>> in
advance.
>>
>>
_______________________________________________________________________________
>> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
> UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE
or access ARSlist Archives at http://www.wwrug.org
__20060125_______________________This
posting was submitted with HTML in it___
__20060125_______________________This posting was submitted with HTML in it___
|
