Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows - WHAT is a FEDERATED DATABASE
Ross,
I was
at the Open World conference session where Jeremy Burton made the comments about
clustering, OPS, data segmentation, etc. The data segmentation part was
about MS SQLServer, and about how it creates significant
Ep,
I have 8i running concurrently on a Win2k system with SS7, and have to say
that it still runs like a dream. Like I mentioned earlier Oracle is still my
favourite databeast, but there are a few things that still cough and
splutter - like OEM for example. The Java side of things can be a
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Alex,
thanks for your positive comments about your enjoyment
of my sense of humor. Laughing is good medicine in
these serious times.
On the other stuff, if you know of any independent testing
labs you like, I'd be curious about their results, too
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows - WHAT is a FEDERATED DATABASE
I
understand the argument, Rodd and it raises three
points/questions:
1) I
can always back up a "state" ( part of a federation?) just like EMC/SRDF/BFD SAN
does
for the Oracle solution, and at less cost,
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Oh, btw, I have NOT supported a single large MS/SS
database, but.I would be curious to hear more about
them, and am (at least these days) the ULTIMATE AGNOSTIC.
People with religion (Larry is God, Oracle is God, Gates
is Satan, My God is better
"Eric D. Pierce" wrote:
Just got off the phone w/ Oracle tech support, and they said that OEM
*is* definetly supported on Windows 2000, and should work fine.
I stand corrected. It didn't work for me or a client of mine "out of the
box" but I just went and turned on *all* the Oracle-related
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows - WHAT is a FEDERATED DATABASE
The
whole idea behind 9i is CacheFusion which uses a high-speed
interconnect to solve the pinging issues. At least that
is the marketing
line
that will only be proved in time. Any database of any size
should
be
using
On 6 Feb 2001, at 7:45, Bill Pribyl wrote:
Date sent: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 07:45:49 -0800
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just got off the phone w/ Oracle tech support, and they said that OEM
*is* definetly supported on Windows 2000,
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
No
problem..
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mohan, RossSent:
Tuesday, February 06, 2001 03:51To: Multiple recipients of list
ORACLE-LSubject: RE: (Win2K vs NT4
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows - WHAT is a FEDERATED DATABASE
CacheFusion is already available in 8i. They call it the first phase, or
something along those lines. 8i version handles the redo blocks over the
interconnect, whereas the 9i will also ship the actual data blocks. So
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Amen on the VMWARE and the value of
knowledgeable SysAds!
-Original Message-
From: Jeffery Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 10:02 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE
On Tue, 06 Feb 2001, Jeffery Stevenson wrote:
Enough monkeys, enough typewriters and enough time can get you Shakespeare.
8 monkeys, 5 minutes - Win98 source code.
Cheers,
GC
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
--
Author: Gregory Conron
INET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
recipients of list
ORACLE-LSubject: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
"NT
still pants"...LOL!!!
It must be
panting alot, It has BLOWN THE DOORS OFF of "Oracle on Unix" in running
SQLServer on NT, as has DB2.
The
general public ( and anyone else ) can wake up
Title: RE: Async I/O on Windows
LOL!!! Amen!
-Original Message-From: Mark Leith
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:25
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
WHOOO a SQLServer vs. Oracle debate
I am running ORacle8i on Windows2000 and for what I use
it for I see no difference from NT.
-Original Message-
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 11:06 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Ross Mark,
There are no major performance concerns here (and we get
Oracle "free" {system
-Original Message-
From: Mohan, Ross [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 9:56 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
SNIP
Wanna drag?
(heh heh heh)
Well, I'd have to shave my legs
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
LOL!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 2:11 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
-Original Message-
From: Mohan
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
TPC doesn't really matter
- You are correct: no single metric covers it all.
But, Oracle is sure all over the ad pages when
it FINALLY manages to get one near the top. Which
isn't often. And right now, hands down, SS2K is
about FOUR TIMES
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
From what I know, Oracle8 is not yet
formally certified on Win2K, believe it
or not. But, I could be way wrong about this.
Anecdotally, I have colleagues running every
from clients through Net8 Names Servers to
database servers
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
You might want to check those results again. Oracle has the top three in the TP-C, nonclustered results.
|| I did. The results speak for themselves. You need to click ALL RESULTS. (Or, are you saying that,
in 2001, we should focus on NON_CLUSTERED
"Eric D. Pierce" wrote:
Ross Mark,
There are no major performance concerns here (and we get
Oracle "free" {system wide educational site license} -
unlike MS/SQL), so what I want to know is: does Oracle8
generally work well on Windows 2000 server (compared to
running it on NT4)?
Well, I
de har har
)
-Original Message-From: Jeffery Stevenson
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:06
PMTo: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject: RE:
OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Well, Oracle does
have all three of the top spots in TPC-C for Non-clustered r
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Do you crash weekly?
-Original Message-
From: Kimberly Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:21 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
Another way of looking at it:
So lets say the 12 computer configuration were to have a failure
in some *single* wintel box every 7 days .. who cares!! The shared
nothing architecture underlying the system load BALANCES users to
machines which
Title: RE: (Win2K vs NT4) / RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows
:)...so, no Win2K Oracle8, but 8i is cool, all around.
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!
(Love the haddock.ani .!)
-Original Message-
From: Eric D. Pierce [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, February 05
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows - Federated Database Foolishness
What's a federated database
|| I don't know. Where did you read it? shrug
We really need to understand this otherwise we'll be duped by Microsoft's
deceptive benchmark claims!!
|| wow! thanks for saving me
Title: RE: OT RE: Async I/O on Windows - WHAT is a FEDERATED DATABASE
I have some answers, for the curious:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2623013,00.html
It appears that SS can partition data storage among multiple
machines, giving it blow your doors off performance
I'm used to Oracle7.3 command line DBA environment. Is
there anything in OEM that I "must have" to run the
Oracle8.1.7/Win2k?
I'm really not sure -- all I have needed to do with is startup, shutdown, and run SQL
PL/SQL scripts.
Good luck
Bill
--
28 matches
Mail list logo
