This discussion is archived
1 2 3 4 Previous Next 54 Replies Latest reply: Feb 10, 2010 2:09 AM by g777 Go to original post RSS
  • 15. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    87944 Explorer
    Currently Being Moderated
    Fahd Mirza wrote:
    Linux runs like Ferrari by disabling X11 and yes also disabling dbconsole/iasconsole on Oracle side.
    On a production system (better with a heavy load) one would separate an admin's workstation with X11 from the system.
    Well, of course, there will be no screensaver on the server.
    I doubt one will find an admin alive around a servers' hardware until there is some real disaster.
  • 16. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    108476 Journeyer
    Currently Being Moderated
    Hi Michael,
    You shall provide strong argumentation for the declaration.
    I shall!

    You don't need a big justification.

    Any OS where you can modify the source code dynamically (DLL's) is a VERY POOR design.
    Remember the architect of Windows (since NT) is Dave Cutler himself.
    Sorry. never heard of him. Is he an Oak Table member?
  • 17. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    Mark Williams-Oracle Employee ACE
    Currently Being Moderated
    burleson wrote:
    Hi Michael,
    You shall provide strong argumentation for the declaration.
    I shall!

    You don't need a big justification.

    Any OS where you can modify the source code dynamically (DLL's) is a VERY POOR design.
    Remember the architect of Windows (since NT) is Dave Cutler himself.
    Sorry. never heard of him. Is he an Oak Table member?
    Dave Cutler is a pretty well-known name from the world of operating systems.

    I'm confused about how a DLL constitutes modifying source code dynamically - can you please clarify what you mean by that? I've never heard that before.

    - Mark
  • 18. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    87944 Explorer
    Currently Being Moderated
    Any OS where you can modify the source code dynamically (DLL's) is a VERY POOR design.
    Sorry?
    Remember the architect of Windows (since NT) is Dave Cutler himself.
    Sorry. never heard of him. Is he an Oak Table member?
    Well, he almost is one, he is from DEC.
  • 19. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    730043 Newbie
    Currently Being Moderated
    Well, he almost is one, he is from DEC.
    He must have had a life changing event.
    ALPHASERVERS were nothing short of incredible, and OpenVMS was sweet.
    DEC gave Oracle clusterware.

    It's too bad they took it all behind the barn to shoot it...

    The Nets Edge
  • 20. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    jgarry Guru
    Currently Being Moderated
    burleson wrote:
    Hi Michael,
    You shall provide strong argumentation for the declaration.
    I shall!

    You don't need a big justification.

    Any OS where you can modify the source code dynamically (DLL's) is a VERY POOR design.
    So you are saying all those files with .so extensions make all unix a very poor design? You've never heard of libc? Even googling "cics dynamic libraries" shows stuff.

    >
    Remember the architect of Windows (since NT) is Dave Cutler himself.
    Sorry. never heard of him. Is he an Oak Table member?
    Shirley, you're Joe King. Didn't you ever wonder about Alpha/NT? Used to have one warming my feet in the last century.
  • 21. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    635471 Expert
    Currently Being Moderated
    burleson wrote:
    Hi Michael,
    You shall provide strong argumentation for the declaration.
    I shall!

    You don't need a big justification.

    Any OS where you can modify the source code dynamically (DLL's) is a VERY POOR design.
    Remember the architect of Windows (since NT) is Dave Cutler himself.
    Sorry. never heard of him. Is he an Oak Table member?
    Don prefers the European o/s to the American one. Interesting! :D
  • 22. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    AliD Expert
    Currently Being Moderated
    >

    He must have had a life changing event.
    ALPHASERVERS were nothing short of incredible, and OpenVMS was sweet.
    DEC gave Oracle clusterware.

    It's too bad they took it all behind the barn to shoot it...

    The Nets Edge
    >

    Still majority of Stock Exchanges around the world use RDB on VMS for sub-milisecond transaction processing... We (Australian Stock Exchange) have had _100%_ uptime in the last 6 years on 2 node VMS cluster touch wood!
  • 23. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    CharlesHooper Expert
    Currently Being Moderated
    Hi Joel,
    jgarry wrote:
    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.
    The links I provided for Mr. Burleson's "Windows sucks" comment where mostly intended to add a little light humor to this thread - but it was somewhat surprising for the Microsoft link about a vacuum to show up during a Google search.

    For the record, we have a couple high-power Windows boxes. For instance, a laser burner which is able to shoot a laser beam through an inch of steel, a break press that exerts 500 tons of force, and a couple very large Italian made Pama CNC mills.
    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."
    Vista had a couple odd problems, especially prior to service pack 1. Server operating systems tend to be a bit more stable as those machines are typically not directly influenced by end-users - end-users are not altering the servers by plugging in their BlackBerries, USB memory stick, IPods, upgrading video card drivers, clicking on links to download nifty spyware, etc. on a daily basis. Microsoft made a lot of changes to limit the frequency of blue screens, especially on the 64 bit platform where a greater effort is made to move driver execution code out of ring 0, where the OS is not able to prevent full system crashes.
    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.
    A very good point that you make here - that is a definite advantage for Linux and other Unix like operating systems. I have encountered some Windows administrators who believe that because an intruder is not signed into the domain, attacks are not possible against member computers of the domain (not quite true). And if the infected computer is a member of the domain, the problem could be much worse. But to be fair, there are risks for opening up Internet type services (HTTP, FTP, telnet, NFS, etc., and SMB) on Linux/Unix servers (but as a positive there is greater ability to control the services presented to users and fine tune access control with the help of iptables).
    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.
    Thanks for the compliment. There are certainly Windows specific bugs for the various Oracle releases. Some of those bugs are memory leaks. It could be argued that in some or possibly many cases equivalent bugs may be found on other platforms as well. From what I understand, a lot of the C source code for Oracle is identical for all platforms, with a smaller amount of code that ties into specific features in each operating system.
    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.
    Good points. What I was trying to suggest is that preference should be given to operating systems which provide familiar features. A case in point: What happens when Linux boxes reside on the same KVM as Windows boxes? Here is a hint: Ctrl + Alt + Delete to lock down the Windows server, tap Ctrl twice to select a different server, press Ctrl + Alt + Delete to ... hey why is this server rebooting? Yes this can be fixed, but it is the default behavior on Linux in run level 2 and 3. Ctrl + Alt + Backspace is quite effective in X Windows when X crashes, but not so effective on Windows. Maybe I am the only one to ever do that (I started working with Linux in 1999, so this was not a “new feature” to me) - granted it was a couple years ago. If all but one of the servers at the OP’s location is running Windows, it would seem that problems such as this may be more frequent. Add to that difference in behavior the fun a Windows administrator could have when trying to sort out RPM package requirements while trying to work with 20 different partial sets of instructions from 20 different sources for 20 different Linux distributions - yes it is spelled out for Oracle (at least a couple ways), but what about all of the other fun things that may be done on Linux.

    Charles Hooper
    IT Manager/Oracle DBA
    K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
  • 24. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    CharlesHooper Expert
    Currently Being Moderated
    burleson wrote:
    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 . . .
    Mr. Burleson,

    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/

    You have removed the context of the Google quotes that I provided. It was not the spelling that I was addressing, but instead the message of your previous post. I attempted to address your message by providing dictionary references for some of the words in your message. Take, for instance, the following comment you made, to which I replied:
    "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."

    Given that you were writing about Windows, just what are you attempting to state by the above? The definitions from Google:
    malfeasance: wrongful conduct by a public official
    unsavory: Disreputable, not respectable, of questionable moral character

    Your message is effectively attempting to communicate this: "Bottom line, it is wrongful conduct by a public official to recommend the Windows OS platform for use as a host for a production database, as the Windows OS has a history of questionable moral character. An average person should be able to determine that an operating system which has a history of questionable moral character should not be used when important data will be processed on the computer."

    It is a message such as the above, containing nothing but absolutes that I find to be hard to understand. With the above message you are effectively implying:
    * Oracle Corp is guilty of a wrongful act just by advertising an Oracle database for the Windows platform, as advertising a product implies recommending a product for use.
    * Everyone who has recommended the use of SQL Server is guilty of wrongful conduct. All of those developers who distribute the SQL Server desktop database for use as an application’s production database are guilty of wrongful conduct.
    * Important data should never be processed using a computer that runs the Windows operating system.
    * The Windows operating system should not be trusted, even if your important data is in a spreadsheet.

    The above implications are why I object to your statement.

    Regarding your comment "The world's most incompetant tech support":
    From the context of your statement I could not understand if you were attempting to state that Microsoft Corp's tech support was incompetent, tech support provided by Windows administrators ranks as incompetent, Oracle's tech support for the Windows platform is incompetent, or if you were just making an odd attempt at irony by intentionally misspelling a word when attempting to criticize a group of other people.

    By the way, thanks for toning down your original response - the version of your response that ended up in my email contained quite a few these:
    http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

    Charles Hooper
    IT Manager/Oracle DBA
    K&M Machine-Fabricating, Inc.
  • 25. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    BillyVerreynne Oracle ACE
    Currently Being Moderated
    burleson wrote:

    Man-oh-man . . .

    Sorry, I absolutely detest spelling Nazis . . .
    I hereby invoke Godwin's law and declare Charles as the winner and Burleson as the looser in this thread.
  • 26. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    BillyVerreynne Oracle ACE
    Currently Being Moderated
    user10702996 wrote:

    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 ...
    Windows can actually run Oracle faster than Linux. There are some interesting (and technically comprehensive) benchmarks available on the web in this regard. There are a couple of primary differences. The processing architecture is very different - and one of the reasons why Windows (where Oracle uses threads) are faster. Memory management also differs, as does how the kernel manages running across multiple CPUs.

    Is Windows better? No. Is Linux better? No. There are a number of factors to consider when choosing an operating system - and these varies from company to company and environment to environment.

    However, Windows can provide less flexibility and scalability. One only has to look at the top 500 clusters in the world (see top500.org) - where the vast majority of the fastest computer systems on this planet run Linux.

    Personally, I will choose Linux and can provide a whole host of reasons why Windows is "inferior" (for my needs and environment). But that does not mean Windows is an inferior o/s. It would be like saying that an apple is a better than a banana.

    Cause I know how to deal with windows much more then how to deal with Linux admin, install and other stuff ...
    If you know the basics of Linux, this is actually easier than Windows. Installing software is as simple as typing "+yum+" and the name of the software package. Administration wise.. no single point of failure like the Windows Registry. Does not matter how badly the config of the o/s get "+damaged+", most times you can boot the o/s and fix it. Something that you often cannot do with Windows and its Registry.

    At the end of the day though, the o/s decision should be based on criteria and requirements for your environment. Do not let stupid advice like "+google windows suck to see how much windows suck+" influence you.

    Be equally aware of Microsoft propaganda. They love to warp and twist TCO to prove Windows is a better choice - when in most cases this is simply not true ito TCO of Linux vs. that of Windows.
  • 27. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    BillyVerreynne Oracle ACE
    Currently Being Moderated
    burleson wrote:

    You don't need a big justification.

    Any OS where you can modify the source code dynamically (DLL's) is a VERY POOR design.
    This statement simply shows a complete and total lack of understanding of what a DLL is, and how it is used.

    News flash Burleson. Linux uses the exact same concept as DLLs. Only it is called "+shared object libraries+". The very same concept was first used on mainframes operating systems. (and yes, I have programmed on mainframes, minis, Unix and Windows, including designing and writing "DLLs".)

    Offering ill understood hearsay as advice on OTN? I kindly suggest that you think twice before "opiniating" on subject matter that you have no clue about.
  • 28. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    jgarry Guru
    Currently Being Moderated
    Charles Hooper wrote:
    Hi Joel,
    jgarry wrote:
    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.
    The links I provided for Mr. Burleson's "Windows sucks" comment where mostly intended to add a little light humor to this thread - but it was somewhat surprising for the Microsoft link about a vacuum to show up during a Google search.
    I should admit I've worked on a number of barcode scanners, and the Windows variant is far superior to the strange OS and app languages that preceded it. It is nice to run the same app on my workstation that run on them, instead of some really strange emulator. But that doesn't stop me from being biased against it.

    >
    For the record, we have a couple high-power Windows boxes. For instance, a laser burner which is able to shoot a laser beam through an inch of steel, a break press that exerts 500 tons of force, and a couple very large Italian made Pama CNC mills.
    Now that is so cool! I took a laser class from UCLA extension in 1981, we went on some tours of places, I remember one place had a CO2 laser, they were doing a run of brass lamp reflectors or something. The company I worked for at that time used a PDP-8 (with 8" floppies!) for controlling stuffing and soldering of circuit boards. The soldering machine was about the size of a pool table, covered with molten metal, the boards would come down and barely skim the surface. No, I didn't do the numerical programming in assembly language, that was contracted out.

    >
    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.
    Of course, I could put in a link to NT controlled Navy ships with BSDs, but that's old news.

    >>
    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.
    Good points. What I was trying to suggest is that preference should be given to operating systems which provide familiar features. A case in point: What happens when Linux boxes reside on the same KVM as Windows boxes? Here is a hint: Ctrl + Alt + Delete to lock down the Windows server, tap Ctrl twice to select a different server, press Ctrl + Alt + Delete to ... hey why is this server rebooting? Yes this can be fixed, but it is the default behavior on Linux in run level 2 and 3. Ctrl + Alt + Backspace is quite effective in X Windows when X crashes, but not so effective on Windows. Maybe I am the only one to ever do that (I started working with Linux in 1999, so this was not a “new feature” to me) - granted it was a couple years ago. If all but one of the servers at the OP’s location is running Windows, it would seem that problems such as this may be more frequent. Add to that difference in behavior the fun a Windows administrator could have when trying to sort out RPM package requirements while trying to work with 20 different partial sets of instructions from 20 different sources for 20 different Linux distributions - yes it is spelled out for Oracle (at least a couple ways), but what about all of the other fun things that may be done on Linux.
    I gave up on linux in 2001 (due to bloat, rootkits and lack of driver consistency), after advocating it for many years. I still prefer "real" unix. I guess I'm in a shrinking minority. I have mixed feelings about this VM stuff.

    I've worked on heterogenous systems a long time, that's why I'm a big fan of working in the native environment of each machine. But I still start typing in the wrong commands.
  • 29. Re: Is ORACLE slower on Windows then on Linux ?
    108476 Journeyer
    Currently Being Moderated
    Offering ill understood hearsay as advice on OTN?
    No, Billy, you are the one who hides his resume, for very good reason, I'm sure . . .
    and yes, I have programmed on mainframes, minis, Unix and Windows, including designing and writing "DLLs".
    No, you haven't. You have no resume, no credibility, no evidence, no proof . . .
    subject matter that you have no clue about.
    Ever heard of the concept of "transference", Billy Boy? That's what's going on here . . .

    http://www.tir.org/metapsy/jom/101_transfer.html

    It does not take a genius to know that Windows sucks, every Hippie with a Mac knows this . . .

Legend

  • Correct Answers - 10 points
  • Helpful Answers - 5 points