1 2 3 4 Previous Next 54 Replies Latest reply: Feb 10, 2010 4:09 AM by g777 RSS

    Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?

    mackrispi
      Hi,

      I'm suppose to choose the platform for Oracle .... Linux or Windows 2008 Server ...

      Ones we've installed Oracle on Windows 2003 Server and it was really slower like 200-300% ..... we did simple default install

      Does anyone know if this is a fact that Oracle will run slower on Windows platform then on any other ? Any experiance with that ? If we are talking about 5-10% then this is ok and I'll stick with windows ...

      Cause I know how to deal with windows much more then how to deal with Linux admin, install and other stuff ...

      Thank you...
      Kris
        • 1. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
          530453
          Well, I have seen more installations on of oracle on unix but you cannot say oracle is generally slow on windows as compare to unix
          • 2. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
            108476
            Ones we've installed Oracle on Windows 2003 Server and it was really slower like 200-300% .....
            That's pretty good, I've seen a lot worse!

            Windows is one of the most poorly designed operating systems ever invented, I don't recommend it for anybody . . .

            I have justification here:

            http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_bad_poor_performance_upgrade_migration_32_64_bit.htm

            Move to Linux, you won't regret it!
            • 3. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
              Charles Hooper
              Kris,

              There are a lot of factors which may have contributed to the slower than expected performance on Windows 2003 that you noticed. Those factors include:
              * Not collecting system (CPU) statistics on Oracle 9i or higher
              * Not collecting data dictionary statistics on Oracle 9i or higher
              * Not configuring large page support, if it is able to be used
              * Not taking advantage of a battery backed cache to improve write performance
              * Leaving the default db_file_multiblock_read_count set to 16 (I believe that is what the DBCA sets on 10g and above) rather than allowing Oracle to auto-tune the parameter. Limiting extent sizes to smaller than 1MB could also cause performance problems.
              * Installing a virus scanner on the server, especially if it is permitted to scan program and data files used by Oracle.
              * Using inappropriate parameters for memory allocations.
              * If a database release upgrade was involved, not directly attacking the specific performance problem which is the source of the problem - could just be just a couple bad execution plans, possibly caused by the upgraded query optimizer.
              * ... (Niall Litchfield, or someone else might be able to provide additional causes)

              A couple things to keep in mind about Windows:
              * Oracle on Windows uses direct, asynchronous I/O, which helps minimize concurrency problems. But, this also means that the operating system's file cache probably is of little use to Oracle on Windows.
              * Oracle on Windows uses a thread model, while Oracle on Linux (and other Unix like operating systems) uses a process model. The thread model is less negatively impacted by context switches than is the process model, which should help improve performance in some cases, such as repeatedly calling a PL/SQL function from a SQL statement.
              * Windows uses a single CPU run queue, while the Linux 2.6 and later kernel uses a separate run queue for each CPU. That means that processes (and threads) tend to float between CPUs more frequently on Windows than on Linux, which may reduce the benefit of large L1 and L2 caches built into the CPUs on Windows. The Linux 2.6 kernel is also able to automatically throttle very CPU intensive processes, which might provide a little more headroom for multiple concurrent Oracle sessions.
              * There is a paper on Microsoft's website titled "Performance Tuning Guidelines for Windows Server 2003" http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/8/0/2800a518-7ac6-4aac-bd85-74d2c52e1ec6/tuning.doc - take a look at that document, but do not implement the suggested TcpAckFrequency Windows registry modification. Try to minimize the amount of memory used by the operating system for file caching.
              * Properly configured, the same server running 64 bit Windows should be able to achieve roughly the same performance as the same server running 64 bit Linux (assuming direct, asynchronous I/O is enabled on Linux).
              * ... (Niall Litchfield, or someone else might be able to provide additional things to keep in mind)

              The general advice that you will likely receive is to use the operating system that you know best for Oracle.

              Mr. Burleson's comments seem to be out of line. Additionally, the link that he provided seems to talk about performance problems upgrading from 32 bit Linux to 64 bit Linux, rather than providing a performance comparison between Linux and Windows.

              Charles Hooper
              IT Manager/Oracle DBA
              K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
              • 4. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                Hans Forbrich
                user10702996 wrote:
                I'm suppose to choose the platform for Oracle .... Linux or Windows 2008 Server ...
                This is a perfect example of why professionals, when asked to suggest one OS over another, will answer "It depends".

                It depends very much on the skill set of your shop.

                I have seen shops that can optimize a Windows machine to as tight as a Linux machine on the same hardware. I have seen shops that can abuse a Linux machine to being much worse than Windows.

                One rule I use with a Linux install is to go 'headless'. Move the graphics to another computer (similar to remote desktop) and gain a significant amount of memory and CPU. (Another rule is to keep the number of non-Oracle processes on the machine to an absolute minimum. If paying Oracle $x/CPU for all CPU on the machine, and you run a program that uses 1 CPU, you have just wasted $x because it is paid to Oracle but you can not use it for Oracle.)

                So my rule of thumb is that: since I can tune a nix much better than I can tune a Windows machine, and therefore I will always lean towards nix.

                Therefore, the choice of OS should be based on where your management is willing to invest in skills.
                • 5. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                  108476
                  Hi Hans,
                  the choice of OS should be based on where your management is willing to invest in skills.
                  Yes. Perfect!

                  I have a list of the relative advantages of Oracle Linux vs. Oracle Windows:

                  http://www.dba-oracle.com/art_builder_linux_oracle.htm

                  Also, if the OP wants to get salable skills, tuning Oracle on Linux is a great choice . . .
                  • 6. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                    108476
                    Hi Charles,
                    Installing a virus scanner on the server, especially if it is permitted to scan program and data files used by Oracle.
                    Ha, that a good one! That the FIRST thing I check!

                    Also, I've seen high demand screensavers (fractals) clobber Oracle performance . . .
                    Oracle on Windows uses a thread model
                    That's actually one of the few "positives" about running Oracle on Windows . . .
                    rather than providing a performance comparison between Linux and Windows.
                    Fine, try here:

                    http://www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_tips_linux_oracle.htm

                    "Roby Sherman performed an exhaustive study of the speed of Oracle on Linux and Microsoft Windows using identical hardware. Sherman currently works for Qwest Communications in the data technologies group of IT architecture and transversal services. He is a recognized expert in designing, delivering, tuning, and troubleshooting n-tier systems and technology architecture components of various size and complexity based on Oracle RDBMS technology.

                    Sherman concludes that Linux was over 30% faster:

                    "From perspective of performance, RedHat Linux 7.2 demonstrated an average performance advantage of 38.4 percent higher RDBMS throughput than a similarly configured Windows 2000 Server in a variety of operational scenarios." Sherman also notes: "Another point of contention was Window's lack of consistency between many database administrative functions (e.g., automated startup, shutdown, service creation, scripting) compared to what DBAs are already used to in many mainstream UNIX environments (e.g., Solaris and HP-UX)."

                    ****************************************************************
                    Mr. Burleson's comments seem to be out of line.
                    No, I'm right on the money.

                    *I've seen enough companies get burned by Windows (unplanned outages, data corruption) to speak with confidence.*

                    Bottom line, it's malfeasence to recommend any OS platform for a production database application that has an unsavory history.

                    It does not take a genius to figure out that an OS with this kind of history should not be used with any data that you care about:

                    - "blue screen of death"
                    - legandary security vulnerabilities
                    - memory leaks you could drive a truck through
                    - Patching weekly
                    - The world's most incompetant tech support

                    I'm not alone in this opinion:

                    http://thetendjee.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/oracle-10202-sucks-on-windows/

                    http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22windows+sucks
                    • 7. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                      Charles Hooper
                      burleson wrote:
                      Hi Charles,
                      Installing a virus scanner on the server, especially if it is permitted to scan program and data files used by Oracle.
                      Ha, that a good one! That the FIRST thing I check!

                      Also, I've seen high demand screensavers (fractals) clobber Oracle performance . . .
                      Oracle on Windows uses a thread model
                      That's actually one of the few "positives" about running Oracle on Windows . . .
                      rather than providing a performance comparison between Linux and Windows.
                      Fine, try here:

                      www.dba-oracle.com/oracle_tips_linux_oracle.htm

                      "Roby Sherman performed an exhaustive study of the speed of Oracle on Linux and Microsoft Windows using identical hardware. Sherman currently works for Qwest Communications in the data technologies group of IT architecture and transversal services. He is a recognized expert in designing, delivering, tuning, and troubleshooting n-tier systems and technology architecture components of various size and complexity based on Oracle RDBMS technology.

                      Sherman concludes that Linux was over 30% faster:

                      "From perspective of performance, RedHat Linux 7.2 demonstrated an average performance advantage of 38.4 percent higher RDBMS throughput than a similarly configured Windows 2000 Server in a variety of operational scenarios." Sherman also notes: "Another point of contention was Window's lack of consistency between many database administrative functions (e.g., automated startup, shutdown, service creation, scripting) compared to what DBAs are already used to in many mainstream UNIX environments (e.g., Solaris and HP-UX)."

                      ****************************************************************
                      Mr. Burleson's comments seem to be out of line.
                      No, I'm right on the money.

                      *I've seen enough companies get burned by Windows (unplanned outages, data corruption) to speak with confidence.*

                      Bottom line, it's malfeasence to recommend any OS platform for a production database application that has an unsavory history.

                      It does not take a genius to figure out that an OS with this kind of history should not be used with any data that you care about:

                      - "blue screen of death"
                      - legandary security vulnerabilities
                      - memory leaks you could drive a truck through
                      - Patching weekly
                      - The world's most incompetant tech support

                      I'm not alone in this opinion:

                      thetendjee.wordpress.com/2007/01/22/oracle-10202-sucks-on-windows/

                      www.google.com/search?&q=%22windows+sucks
                      Mr. Burleson,

                      Good point on the screen saver.

                      Comparing Windows 2000, released in March 2000, with Red Hat 7.2 which was released in ... sorry, forgot the date, but I put in a couple servers running that release of Linux into service in 2001. I was kind of hoping that you would have an article which pits Windows 3.1 against the original Linux release. :-)

                      You might be happy to know that things have changed significantly since Windows 3.1, and also significantly since Windows 2000. There were many improvements in Windows 2003 over Windows 2000 (I happened to read a couple large books on the subject of Windows 2003 Server a couple years ago). This page contains a couple links that you may want to browse:
                      http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/default.mspx

                      Windows sucks... I have heard that the Microsoft Windows operating system is on barcode scanners, phones, and even car navigation systems. I had no idea that vacuums also utilized Windows, thanks for the heads-up:
                      http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6289552/description.html
                      http://advertising.microsoft.com/BestVacuum

                      Interesting Google search of the day: define:malfeasence
                      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amalfeasence&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
                      "Did you mean: define:malfeasance

                      No definitions were found for malfeasence"

                      define:malfeasance
                      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Amalfeasance&spell=1

                      "Definitions of malfeasance on the Web:

                      •wrongful conduct by a public official
                      wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

                      •The expressions misfeasance and nonfeasance, and occasionally malfeasance, are used in English law with reference to the discharge of public obligations existing by common law, custom or statute.
                      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malfeasance

                      •wrongdoing; Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official that causes damage
                      en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malfeasance"

                      define:unsavory
                      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aunsavory
                      "Definitions of unsavory on the Web:

                      •morally offensive; ‘an unsavory reputation’; ‘an unsavory scandal’
                      •distasteful: not pleasing in odor or taste
                      wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

                      •Disreputable, not respectable, of questionable moral character
                      en.wiktionary.org/wiki/unsavory"

                      Regarding blue screen of death, those are rather rare with versions of Windows since the release of Windows 2000. The last blue screen that I saw on a server happened when an ECC memory module started experiencing multiple hardware bit errors which could not be corrected by the ECC memory logic. The server hardware forced the blue screen to prevent data corruption. The previous blue screen? A Windows NT 4.0 Server (circa 1996) when a new RAID controller was added to the server.

                      Regarding legandary security vulnerabilities, well I don't think that it quite qualifies as legendary. However, given the wide usage of Windows (particularly by people just starting to learn to use computers), there will very definitely be more security issues to contend with - Windows often offers a larger attack surface than other operating systems. Yes, there have been many security problems over the years.

                      Regarding memory leaks you could drive a truck through, I have to say that in a server environment I have not experienced that problem. On a desktop environment, I would say that it is typically the fault of poorly written applications which cause the memory leaks. Windows will often clean up after the poorly written applications when they are closed.

                      Regarding patching weekly, yes there are typically frequent security and bug fixes released for the Windows platform, but I suggest that if someone is patching weekly on a server, there is probably a larger problem to be addressed.

                      Regarding the world's most incompetant tech support, I am not sure that I follow your logic:
                      define:incompetant
                      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aincompetant
                      "Did you mean: define:incompetent

                      No definitions were found for incompetant.

                      Suggestions:

                      - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
                      - Search the Web for documents that contain 'incompetant'"

                      As previously stated, consideration should be given to the operating system which is most familiar to the OP.

                      Charles Hooper
                      IT Manager/Oracle DBA
                      K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
                      • 8. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                        Hans Forbrich
                        <sarcasm mode=on>
                        Charles Hooper wrote:
                        You might be happy to know that things have changed significantly since Windows 3.1, and also significantly since Windows 2000. There were many improvements in Windows 2003 over Windows 2000 (I happened to read a couple large books on the subject of Windows 2003 Server a couple years ago).
                        Say it ain't so. You mean that newer versions contain improvements?

                        Is that maybe why people want to know the version (and the operating system) when someone asks for help in these forums? :-)
                        </sarcasm>

                        But I concur about Linux vs Windows. In my informal tests, and with my lack of Windows tuning ability, I can generally get Oracle on Linux with X11 and Oracle on Windows to run about the same, but get significant improvements by dropping to run level 3 in Linux.

                        I'm pretty sure that using a Windows Server environment in the hands of some true Windows internals gurus (I've known a few) would level that playing field somewhat. Fortunately for Linux, there are very few at that level.
                        • 9. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                          Fahd.Mirza
                          Linux runs like Ferrari by disabling X11 and yes also disabling dbconsole/iasconsole on Oracle side.
                          • 10. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                            730043
                            Smiles ALL -


                            In my shop, the DBA's prefer linux/unix over windows.

                            Windows databases seem to be shoebox databases with only a couple dozen users. For most DB's over 200g, and more than 24 users, the DBA's recommend non windows. (Linux, Solaris, even AIX)

                            I am also embarassed to admit, we still have 7.3 databases, 8.0 databases, and 8i databases. (along with 9i's and 10g's too.) Unfortunately, we cannot upgrade, as they are considered 'layered products of an application' and likely runtime licenses.

                            BOTTOM LINE: due to reluctance, poor job scheduling, difficult system management (especially with multiple oracle homes) the DBA staff RESPONDS and RESOLVES issues more willingly, promptly, and efficiently on non-windows systems.

                            The Nets Edge
                            • 11. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                              674757
                              For what it's worth. I do run a few installations of Oracle 11g 64 bit on Windows 2008 server 64 bit. Just make sure you give it enough RAM and processor power, and you'll be fine. Works like a charm for me..

                              Rob.
                              • 12. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                                108476
                                Did you mean: define:incompetent
                                Man-oh-man . . .

                                Sorry, I absolutely detest spelling Nazis . . .

                                I spent my college time learning computer science, not memorizing spelling . . .

                                Personally, I think that people who fixate on trivial non-issues (spelling, grammar, typos) are rude, not paying attention to the arguments. . . .
                                Definitions of unsavory on the Web:
                                There you go again, pretending that you don't understand something, just because I mis-spelled a word!!!!!

                                It's not just annoying Charles, this type of inappropriate behavior can be embarassing to you.
                                Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
                                Suggestion - Stop acting like a child . . .
                                • 13. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                                  87944
                                  Nets_Edge wrote:
                                  Smiles ALL -
                                  Yeah.
                                  In my shop, the DBA's prefer linux/unix over windows.
                                  I vote for linux.
                                  Linux, Solaris, even AIX
                                  ;)
                                  burleson wrote:
                                  Windows is one of the most poorly designed operating systems ever invented
                                  You shall provide strong argumentation for the declaration.
                                  Remember the architect of Windows (since NT) is [Dave Cutler|http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Cutler/default.mspx] himself.
                                  Though I suppose that even he could provide, perhaps, a well-done core design, further microsoftisation of the OS resulted in the common opinion you declared.
                                  I don't recommend it for anybody . . .
                                  Still I support this your side.
                                  Move to Linux, you won't regret it!
                                  I stand up for the idea.
                                  • 14. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
                                    jgarry
                                    Charles Hooper wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    Windows sucks... I have heard that the Microsoft Windows operating system is on barcode scanners, phones, and even car navigation systems. I had no idea that vacuums also utilized Windows, thanks for the heads-up:
                                    For what very little it is worth, I have one car with a 2008 vintage MS car navigation, and another car with a 2008 vintage non-MS car navigation (both built-in, from manufacturer). The MS one is noticeably worse. I won't bore with all the details, but it includes things like being confused as to whether a phone is attached with blue-tooth, stupid phonebook mistranslation on upload, more annoying voice directions, suddenly being confused about location for no apparent reason, and lots more little things. Basically, I laugh when I see car ads trumpeting Sync. Also, I have two phones defined in both cars, when I have one phone in each car and the cars next to each other, the Sync gets confused, but the other one doesn't.


                                    >
                                    Regarding blue screen of death, those are rather rare with versions of Windows since the release of Windows 2000. The last blue screen that I saw on a server happened when an ECC memory module started experiencing multiple hardware bit errors which could not be corrected by the ECC memory logic. The server hardware forced the blue screen to prevent data corruption. The previous blue screen? A Windows NT 4.0 Server (circa 1996) when a new RAID controller was added to the server.
                                    Comment from someone more knowledgeable than me, when I asked him - "about 2 or 3 months ago with XP. Why?" Mention this... "He's smoking crack... seen it with Vista."

                                    >
                                    Regarding legandary security vulnerabilities, well I don't think that it quite qualifies as legendary. However, given the wide usage of Windows (particularly by people just starting to learn to use computers), there will very definitely be more security issues to contend with - Windows often offers a larger attack surface than other operating systems. Yes, there have been many security problems over the years.
                                    The problem is, the servers tend to be on the same networks as these users.

                                    >
                                    Regarding memory leaks you could drive a truck through, I have to say that in a server environment I have not experienced that problem. On a desktop environment, I would say that it is typically the fault of poorly written applications which cause the memory leaks. Windows will often clean up after the poorly written applications when they are closed.
                                    And you've never seen an Oracle Windows memory leak? Charles, I normally consider you up there with the demigods, but I'm having a problem with this one.
                                    As previously stated, consideration should be given to the operating system which is most familiar to the OP.
                                    If the consideration means giving in to management not giving basic necessary training for the production environment, I'd consider not considering this. For a little standalone system, hey, whatever, I have things running on XP with no problem, but for mission-critical systems, being dependent on windows-based RAC for scalability... well, not for me.
                                    1 2 3 4 Previous Next