Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Linux Helping Oracle 148

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the more-the-merrier dept.
Mr. Fahrenheit writes "CNN has a story about how Oracle's effort to port their database to Linux may be helping them to out pace IBM." From the article: "In its biennial survey of the world's largest databases, WinterCorp, a database research and consulting company, reported that Oracle dominated its list of 175 large databases. For the first time, databases running on Linux appeared on WinterCorp's list -- and all of them came from Oracle."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Helping Oracle

Comments Filter:
  • by dretay (583646) <drewNO@SPAMcs.umd.edu> on Sunday April 09, 2006 @12:50PM (#15095154) Homepage
    I have recently had a lot of experience trying to install Oracle 9i on linux. The installer is broken in multiple places, and the only way to get it to install is to buy an Oracle support contract (there are specific "coyprighted" scripts that can not be found on the web). Even after you buy the contract, you have to go through several permutations of apply this patch, run this script... to get it to work. Once working the database becomes a resource hog, and seems to break quite often when I am applying system updates. Trying to move database tables from one server to another is also a major pain in the ass (although it could just be that MySQL is very easy) I can not think of anything short of a gun to the head that could convince me to try installing oracle on linux again.
  • by dknj (441802) on Sunday April 09, 2006 @01:11PM (#15095208) Journal
    wow, first of all this is a truely misconceived post. second, shame on the moderators that are artificially increasing the validity of this.

    first of all, any worthwhile company running oracle WILL have a support contract. period. second, the installer (which i agree blows chunks) is not broken to the point where you REQUIRE a support contract. i speak from experience here, because i have had no problem installing oracle 9i on linux (without calling oracle support). third, oracle is a resource hog because of its design. you don't use oracle for a 10 record database, go use MySQL and worry about your tables getting corrupted for that. now when you're talking million records or more, then oracle will "hog your resources" to ensure you get lightening quick responses while ensuring data integrity. finally, moving databases from one server to another is hardly a pain, if you are a competent system administrator (or even if you're not.. if you have a competent technical lead). again, i'm speaking from experience.

    and if you still hate oracle because it is a commerical product (i say this only because you sound biased towards mysql), then jump ship to postgresql. besides the fact that its autovacuum package also sucks ass, it is the only competitor to oracle that i would trust in a production environment.
  • Re:Bollocks (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, 2006 @01:44PM (#15095289)
    Oracle has been running on Linux for many years. In fact, Oracle runs on just about any OS. The biggest difference is that you can port your Oracle applications from one OS to the next with no code changes and your applications should work (you still need to test - more likeley it would be a bug in the version that you ported to that may crop up). DB2, different code base for each OS that it runs on (which I think are AIX and one or 2 Linux versions). You would most likely have to change your code to make it work to get it to work on the different OS.

    That, is a big deal.
  • by Chitlenz (184283) <chitlenzNO@SPAMchitlenz.com> on Sunday April 09, 2006 @02:34PM (#15095517) Homepage
    I'd say they're right, but also this article is a tad late to the party. This has been going on for at LEAST 5 years, since 8.0 was first released for, I believe, Redhat 7. Consequently, this is not some huge rush for Redhat, and I actually have found tighter distros to run 10g better (I like gentoo, but it's a pain in the ass to get tuned right for this particular task). Anyway, what I found interesting is that our linux oracle systems absolutely STOMPED the 8 way v880/16GB Solaris boxes in archive testing involving 4+TB databases (this to us was a real shock btw... I'm currently buying v40z class servers from Sun that are 4x dual core opteron boxes for like a 10th of the price of a true solaris (Sparc) platform. Thus I would say IBM's problem is Sun's problem in this case as far as selling big iron anymore).

    I think Oracle is winning because Oracle is honest to god better than their competition. I was (am?) a DBA for 10 years on Sybase (AIX), SQL Server 6x 7x 2kx, Informix 8x 9x, and Oracle 8x 9x 10x at various times, and though I've moved on to a database architecture role with the company I'm with, I'm still making the call on systems purchases. We use mostly SQL Server 2005, for cost, in the smaller 4-6TB systems and they run great, but I wouldn't even consider DB2 for any production role anymore with Oracle out there making it happen in so many better ways.

    I'm not a fanboy of Ellison, I'm just realistic about who's driving the market today.

    --chitlenz

    PS - Oh yeah, as mentioned we're running Sun 40z's with Windows Server 2003 and SQL Server 2005 on Netapp arrays AND it is VERY MUCH worth noting that the lower end Sun/Opteron line not only runs windows, but runs windows VERY well (driver support for their servers is very very good, which was like ... well weird... 'Sun support? Can I get a download link to your windows drivers?'). Try it and be shocked ....just a tip.

    --chitlenz

    PPS - for anyone who is curious about this topic in any real way, use an isntall guide other than Oracle's, since it's usually wrong for awhile ... use something like http://www.puschitz.com/InstallingOracle10g.shtml [puschitz.com]
    instead.

  • Most "IT" people... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 09, 2006 @03:01PM (#15095606)
    From what I've seen so far, most IT people dislike it

    The kind of "IT people" of whom you are speaking, are far too untrained and unqualified to be making a valid judgement call on the merits of Oracle. Oracle is an incredibly sophisticated database system, intended to be installed and operated only by those persons with enough training and understanding of its architecture. It is intended for really big, really complex applications and not for the mundane. In its intended applications, Oracle is powerful, fast and unbeatable. It scales to levels that MS SQL and other lesser databases can never reach (DB2 is its closest peer, Informix once was too, but that's toast now). It has a steep learning curve that you must make a serious commitment to mastering, and once you've reached that expert level, you'll easily see that Oracle is the "king daddy paw-paw" of all RDBMS's.

    In parallel to your statement, we could also say that "From what I've seen so far, most PC users dislike Linux" because it too has a learning curve to it that is radically dissimilar to Windows from an average PC user's perspective.
  • by briansmith (316996) on Sunday April 09, 2006 @03:05PM (#15095615) Homepage
    It's good that Oracle runs on Linux, as Postgresql has done for many years, but at what point do you really need to spend all that money on Oracle? I think Postgresql will be more than sufficient for 95+% of all apps out there.

    I agree, but I would like to point out that Oracle doesn't usually cost $50K/CPU for any system that would be sufficient for PostgreSQL. It is more fair to compare Oracle Standard Edition or Oracle SE One to PostgreSQL, which are priced significantly lower ($15K and $5K respectively, plus support). Even EE is "only" $40K/CPU, plus support.
  • by jadavis (473492) on Sunday April 09, 2006 @10:12PM (#15097139)
    There are a few issues here.

    First, do you want the statistics because PostgreSQL is choosing a bad plan without them, or do you use the statistics directly?

    I'm having a little trouble understanding exactly what you want. It sounds like maybe you want something other than an elapsed time to trigger autovacuum on that one temp table so that the statistics are updated. But really, if there is any time lapse at all it seems like your application could not rely on the numbers without doing an explicit "ANALYZE" or "VACUUM ANALYZE".

    Perhaps what you're looking for is up-to-date statistics of some kind. This has been discussed at length on the pgsql-hackers mailing list, primarily regarding the "count(*)" aggregate function. To do it in a transactionally up-to-date way requires triggers. If you want it to be automatic, certainly triggers are not for you since it's easier to do an "ANALYZE" than create a trigger. It could also be done with extensive locking.

    The main problem is that the behavior you want can't be the default because it would cause performance problems for other applications. And you also say you don't want to do it explicitly.

    Can you describe what you're trying to accomplish? Perhaps there is another way.

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Working...