How it is running?
Any spesific advices?
EM64T looks interesting.

Thanks

On Nov 9, 9:43*am, "Jack" <n... (AT) INVALIDmail (DOT) com> wrote:
What's Win2k8R2? Windows 2000? Maybe is there a windows 2008?

Sorry you lost me here ...

Best advice is to not run Oracle on windows and go for real unix/linux
systems.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 12:48:49 -0800, John Hurley wrote:

Does that mean that Windows is a some sort of a unix system, but not the
real one? The OP asked a perfectly legitimate question. I felt an impulse
to jovially respond with "don't", but was able to refrain from such a
childish act. BTW, it will be interesting to see the "real systems" with
the write barriers in 2.6.32+:

http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source...stems/ext4.txt
http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg00081.html

If nothing else, NTFS is a mature file system which can beat Ext3, Ext4
ReiserFS and similar toys hands down when it comes to I/O performance.
NTFS has extents and defragmentation for years, Ext3 suffers a from
fragmentation and slows down considerably if a multitude of small files,
for instance with extensions like "*.trc", "*.aud" or "*.arch" are
regularly written to and deleted from disk. Ext4, on the other hand, has
extents to help deal with the problem, but no defragmenter:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1201298 (look at the reply by
Nick Rhodes).

People who have created NTFS must be laughing to tears while looking at
all of that. The mess is, of course, partially created by Linus Torvalds
himself and his diatribe against O_DIRECT:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/10/233


As a matter of fact, Linux is in a sorry state these days. Buggy, having
performance problems and having finally lost the battle for the hearts
and minds: http://tinyurl.com/26tawax

I must say that running Oracle on top of Windows 7 is much less
preposterous than it sounds. Windows, once again, rules supreme on the
desktop, Oracle will likely mess up OpenOffice, the performance of
Windows 7 server is not at all bad. I tested it myself and it beats down
even a well tuned Red Hat 5.5 system on the same machine. It doesn't beat
it down by much, but, to my surprise, the Windows 7 Server was the clear
winner of our internal in-house test. It was a very lax setting, not a
formal benchmark, so I cannot publish the results, but I must say that I
was surprised by them. Windows 7 is a very solid animal, as well as NTFS,
and our local SA was able to tune it quite well. The database was Oracle
RDBMS 11.2.0.1 on both machines, with filesystemio_options was set to
"setall" on both configurations, disks were SAN disks on an old HP MSA
disk array which went out of support and is no longer used for production
systems. The system has 2 quad-core AMD processor units and 16GB of RAM.
Linux was Red Hat 5.5 x86-64, with all the disks formatted as Ext3, while
Windows was represented with 64-bit Windows 7 Server. Application was
home grown.


--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

On Nov 10, 8:29*am, Mladen Gogala <n... (AT) email (DOT) here.invalid> wrote:


Yegawds! More madness...


Why on earth hasn't the Linux development community learned from full-
strength file systems such as xfs - and others - instead of
perpetually trying to re-invent the wheel?
"Not invented here" is rampant, in those circles!...


Lovely. He's an expert in data management and file system
architecture now, as well? The man must be a God, such is his
infallibility and endless knowledge about everything...

Of course dbs don't need to use anything else than the page cache!
Next mad idea?...


Indeed. True for desktops. For servers, I still have my doubts and
hold hope high.

But fine tuning Linux/Oracle servers still involves a lot of
unnecessary "black arts", inadmissible this day and age. Look at the
whole rigmarole with hugepages and the heaps of conflicting info out
there on why/how/when to use it, most of it against.

This, when IBM, Dijkstra and many others proved beyond any doubt why
it'd be needed once we got into 64-bit hardware and very large memory,
35 years ago! It's got nothing to do with OSs and all to do with TLB
size and virtual memory translation.

Talk about no clue... Indeed it is true that those who refuse to
learn from history are forever comdemned to endlessly repeat the same
mistakes.

Sure: it's easy to hire an "expert" to come in and fix things up.
Problem is: why should one be needed for something as basic?

Ah well: let's hope they don't learn the lesson too late.
Don't hold your breath...

"Mladen Gogala" <no (AT) email (DOT) here.invalid> wrote


10+++

Thanks

On Nov 9, 8:48*pm, John Hurley <hurleyjo... (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Microsoft Windows 2008 Release 2.

Some of us dont' have any choice, sadly. However, as much as I hate
to admit it, Windows 2008 64-bit does resemble a real O/S!

Mind you, why I still have to be warned "if you change a file name
extension, the file may become unusable" or why I need a cute animated
dog to help me "search" for files on a adult's operating system is
beyond me!

Possibly these things can be altered by changing system settings
somewhere, but surely an enterprise server's O/S should be set to
"adult" out of the box!

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:37:55 -0800, gazzag wrote:

Yes it does. Don't get me wrong, I am an old Unix/Linux hack who is used
to working in Unix environment. I would love nothing better than to see
Linux succeed. Unfortunately, there is a carnival of vanities, there are
many commercial interests and there are many inhabitants of the lovely
kingdom of Id that will probably see to it that Linux gets as messed up
as Windows, if not even more. What the heck, Linux is open!



--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

Joel:

# I must say, I came to the conclusion long ago linux was incompatible
with commercial interests - and certainly my personal desktop
interests - but didn't really know if it was just me being a dinosaur
and being wishful about all the effort being expended would be better
spent on real unix. *I feel validated with Mladen's "carnival of
vanities" post.

Ummm ... well around here lots of fairly big companies running lots of
database systems on linux. Not too many problems in general with a
mix of preferences including RedHat and OEL being the most popular
platforms.

Just tons of people at Open World this year who have gone the fully
monty over to linux for their database servers.

After Larry paraded the penguins around on stage a couple of years
there is no going back. You can find highlights from OOW this
year ... Larry talked for a long time about how Oracle will be
developing/maintaining/enhancing and supporting linux.

Was I somewhat skeptical this year going to OOW ( and after we have
moved to OEL ) after the Sun purchase. You know it. Did I come away
with any leftover nervousness ... not at all.

Nothing wrong with Solaris and from a long time back I used to do
admin work on it ( for the database and app servers ).

Neither linux or Solaris is going to be left behind by Oracle.

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:24:47 -0800, John Hurley wrote:

Linux is cheaper. That is the reason.

Fully Monty?



--
http://mgogala.byethost5.com

"Mladen Gogala" <no (AT) email (DOT) here.invalid> wrote

After restart (Win7-64b =about 2k8R2 rdbms alerts "Beginning crash
recovery"
I think it (OS) does not shutdown database, there was somewere
some bat-file when shutding down OP.
Or what could fix this?