Posted by Tony Rogerson on 04/13/06 10:22

> One factor we routinely see with Oracle is that one can take a single
> piece of hardware. First load Oracle on Windows XP SP2 on it and run a
> load. Then format the hard disk and perform the exact same test using
> RedHat Linux. The difference in scalability and performance is hard to
> miss.

So you are comparing an OS mean't for the desktop (XP) against an OS mean't
for a server environment.

Like I say, your bias of anti-MS tunnels your judgement.

If I get some free time I'll try a comparison between linux and windows 2003
r2 server edition which is a more comparable test.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlserverfaq.com - free video tutorials

"DA Morgan" <damorgan@psoug.org> wrote in message
news:1144897930.909259@yasure.drizzle.com...
> Tony Rogerson wrote:
>> Arrrrr. the lab and tester that has a massive and tunneled bias towards
>> oracle and is so anti windows that he's bricked up all the windows in his
>> appartment.
>>
>> I'm not suprised, based on past evidence that you cannot repro anything
>> that SQL Server on the windows platform is better at!
>
> I'm not surprised. Much of the resistance to SQL Server has nothing to
> do with SQL Server but rather Windows and much of it quite rationally.
>
> One factor we routinely see with Oracle is that one can take a single
> piece of hardware. First load Oracle on Windows XP SP2 on it and run a
> load. Then format the hard disk and perform the exact same test using
> RedHat Linux. The difference in scalability and performance is hard to
> miss.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> http://www.psoug.org
> damorgan@x.washington.edu
> (replace x with u to respond)

[Back to original message]