Re: [vox] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [vox] PostgreSQL vs. Oracle
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 02:50:53PM -0800, Brian Lavender wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:38:55AM -0800, Don Werve wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 11:23:15AM -0800, Rod Roark wrote:
> > > Thanks Eric, this is good stuff.
> > >
> > > The Oracle rep's pitch is the kind of techno-nonsense that works on
> > > gullible managers. Some of what he said was true of Postgres a year or
> > > more ago -- not today.
> > Then again, anyone considering a large database on Intel hardware is insane;
> > there's a reason why big databases run on big iron. Let's see an Intel
> > machine hold 128 processors, talk to ten seperate fibre channel arrays, and
> > dynamically re-assign CPUs, memory, and I/O from a serial port. Oh, and
> > we can't forget the ability to hot-swap almost every component on the
> > machine with zero downtime. That's why people like Sun, IBM, and HP are
> > still in business.
> I do believe that this is available on Intel hardware. I believe
> that you can buy a box with 4 Gigs of RAM with all hot swappable
> components including PCI cards from Dell. I don't know about CPU's
> though. In addition, I do believe that the Linux file system is fast
> and efficient. A year ago, at sacLUG we had a rep come from Sleepycat
> Software, which provides commercial support for Berkeley DB, and he said
> that the efficiency of writing directly to raw disk no longer outweighs
> the native filesystem.
First; an apology -- I overstated the number of CPUs in a Sun Fire 15K;
the correct number is 106 (the maximum number of CPUs that can be thrown
in a 15K).
Second; a note -- Of the Big Bad Unix Vendors, I am most familiar with
Sun hardware, as I admin Solaris, BSD, and Linux. This is why I'm
not including much information about HP, IBM, SGI, or Compaq boxes;
because I know about as much about them as I do about martian
That being said...
Um; 4G of RAM isn't even *close* to big iron. Our bottom-of-midrange
DB server is a Sun Fire 4800 with 4G and 4CPUs; this is the smallest
configuration its available in; nominally, a Fire 4800 comes with a
*base* of 8G and supports a maximum of 96G of RAM and up to 12 US3
processors, all hot-swappable. Each processor has its own 8MB cache.
And this is a *mid-range* server; e.g., Little Iron.
Granted, they do cost in the $125K category, but are scalable over
time -- e.g., our company will still be using this in five years, and
we'll still be getting same-day replacement parts from Sun. Software
written for Solaris in five years will still run on it; hell, I can
run software written ten years ago for Solaris 2.6 on it.
Plus there's LOM (requires Solaris 8), OBP, RSC, Hardware Domains...
Big Iron is something like a Sun Fire 15K -- Sun's top-of-the line.
That's right, this baby was made in America; can support up to 106
US3 CPUs, 576GB of RAM, has dynamic system domains, and a hair trigger
(otherwise known as Solaris 8). Companies like McKesson HBOC, Mobil,
and Celera Genomics use kits like this for handling databases in the
Sorry, but as much as I like Linux, there is no way in hell it can
touch these kinds of numbers; boxes like this (and their OSes) are
specialized as hell. Linux on commodity Intel hardware can't even
come close to matching this.
Linux fine-tuned for mainframes would be another story, but isn't
a stable enough reality yet (IBM is working on this, though...)
Don Werve <email@example.com>
Unix System Administrator
Plus je vois les hommes, plus j'admire les chiens.
vox mailing list