Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Windows 2003 66-95% faster the Linux

["Bobo, the Dark Clown" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Not to mention that this is our first foray into Oracle on linux, and 
it's a pretty big deal (for the linux biased anyway). Oracle's suggested 
config is ext3, so Oracle gets ext3.

One of the big milestones on this project will be establishing, to 
management's satisfaction, that Oracle will support linux as easily as 
they support MS. Now, we all know that Ellison likes nothing better than 
slamming Bill, but proving to the MS-biased management that this equates 
to support for our enterprise applications is a different story.

Rick

Nathan Mahon wrote:
> I'm sure this is true. Journaling aside, you're comparing Ext2fs with 
> Reiser's b*tree layout.
> Ext2fs -> Table based.  Rather efficient with low numbers of files, size 
> doesn't matter much, as long as they're not too fragged.
> 
> Reiser -> Tree based.   A better all around solution for an OS, mostly 
> because an OS has *many* files, and better, the more files you get, and 
> handles frags better, IIRC.
> 
> So ... with oracle, which shouldn't use that many files for its db, and 
> typically having entire partitions allocated for nothing other than 
> oracle, yeah.  You'd see the good side of the table based exponential 
> function.
> 
> on a partially unrelated note, isn't Samba mediocre anyway?  aren't we 
> comparing samba to native smb? Does it really have anything to do with 
> linux testing?
> 
> I mean ... arent they saying "my applications talk to my applications 
> better than your applications talk to my applications."
> 
> and does that suprise *anyone*?
> 
> n8

-- 
     People who are willing to rely on the government to keep them safe 
are pretty much standing on Darwin's mat, pounding on the door, 
screaming, "Take me, take me!"

Carl Jacobs


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion