[rescue] this is not good news,

[Patrick Giagnocavo]

On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 11:29:18PM -0500, Kurt Huhn wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 09:14:29PM -0700, dave venable wrote:
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/storyba/0,4125,NAV47_STO67867,00.html
> >
> > Hmm.  I thought that the linux port of oracle was considered one of the
> worst.
> > Have they ever gotten raw disk support working?
> >
> 
> I don't think so.  And multi-threaded server is just flat fucking broken -
> still (since, like, i dunno, forever!).  The Linux port is, hands down, the
> *worst* implementation I've seen.  Our DBA practically begged me to buy some
> Sun systems to run Oracle on...

Being cynical about Oracle, maybe it is precisely because you need
more hardware to run under Linux that Oracle likes Linux?  

How is Oracle licensed?  I know that at one point they used "power
units" - and while the x86 power units were a little cheaper, big DB's
are all about IO not compute server tasks.  So people were maxing out
on really big systems with 1Ghz cpus when they could get equivalent
performance by buying an olde SGI Challenge L or Origin and paying
less money total.

./patrick