Hi,

We're using an E450: 'Sun Enterprise 450 (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)'
with 1Gb of RAM as a development platform.

We have to buy new licences for Oracle database. As the current box has
4 CPUs we have to buy the Oracle Standard Edition with the equivalent of
100 user-licences. We have around a dozen real users...

So, we're evaluating the cost of dumping the current server and getting
a new one (probably Intel) with only one or two processors so that we
can buy the cheaper Oracle Standard One database.

Can anyone point me to information that would allow me to compare the
E450 with modern Intel set-ups so that we can see whether this would
appear to be a cost-effective move. I'd assume that we'd go for similar
disc setups, etc.

Personally, I like our E450 as it has performed reliably for the 4 years
that I've used it but our IT bod's are now Intel-centric so it's
unlikely that we'd be able to buy a new Sun box... unless there's a good
business case.
--
Andy - Opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of
Advantica Ltd

"Andrew Hardy" <junkmail@[127.0.0.1]> a écrit dans le message de
news:c7nm36$5qe$1@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
> Hi,
>
> We're using an E450: 'Sun Enterprise 450 (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)'
> with 1Gb of RAM as a development platform.
>

We recently replaced a similar UE 450 2Gb RAM machine by a Sun 280R (1.2 Ghz
single CPU, 5Gb RAM) and found the machine to perform as good (if not
better) than the 450. Technology (eg. disks) as improved a lot since the
450, that gives a good boost in performance.

I would not run anything else than solaris or Linux on the Intel Platform,
otherwise, your CPU will be busy managing the GUI and useless stuff instead
of your database. But other people may actually like windows for whatever
reason (maybe they have MSFT stock :-)

G Dahler wrote:

> "Andrew Hardy" <junkmail@[127.0.0.1]> a écrit dans le message de
> news:c7nm36$5qe$1@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>We're using an E450: 'Sun Enterprise 450 (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)'
>>with 1Gb of RAM as a development platform.
>>
>
>
> We recently replaced a similar UE 450 2Gb RAM machine by a Sun 280R (1.2 Ghz
> single CPU, 5Gb RAM) and found the machine to perform as good (if not
> better) than the 450. Technology (eg. disks) as improved a lot since the
> 450, that gives a good boost in performance.
>
> I would not run anything else than solaris or Linux on the Intel Platform,
> otherwise, your CPU will be busy managing the GUI and useless stuff instead
> of your database. But other people may actually like windows for whatever
> reason (maybe they have MSFT stock :-)
>
>

If you go to a site like Dell or Red Hat, you should be able to find
some white papers with Oracle performance test comparisons to Sun (and
probably other competing vendors).

We have done several tests of both batch and transactional processing
and found that a shiny new Intel/Linux box vastly out-performs the
five-year-old Sun/Solaris hardware we use. Vendor support is a
different and less positive story, however...

--Mark Bole

Mark Bole wrote:

> G Dahler wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Hardy" <junkmail@[127.0.0.1]> a écrit dans le message de
>> news:c7nm36$5qe$1@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We're using an E450: 'Sun Enterprise 450 (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)'
>>> with 1Gb of RAM as a development platform.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We recently replaced a similar UE 450 2Gb RAM machine by a Sun 280R
>> (1.2 Ghz
>> single CPU, 5Gb RAM) and found the machine to perform as good (if not
>> better) than the 450. Technology (eg. disks) as improved a lot since the
>> 450, that gives a good boost in performance.
>>
>> I would not run anything else than solaris or Linux on the Intel
>> Platform,
>> otherwise, your CPU will be busy managing the GUI and useless stuff
>> instead
>> of your database. But other people may actually like windows for
>> whatever
>> reason (maybe they have MSFT stock :-)
>>
>>
>
> If you go to a site like Dell or Red Hat, you should be able to find
> some white papers with Oracle performance test comparisons to Sun (and
> probably other competing vendors).
>
> We have done several tests of both batch and transactional processing
> and found that a shiny new Intel/Linux box vastly out-performs the
> five-year-old Sun/Solaris hardware we use. Vendor support is a
> different and less positive story, however...
>
> --Mark Bole
>
>

I bet a shiny new Sun would outperform a five year old Sun, too.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.

CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<409FBEC3.8040804@prodigy.net>...
> Mark Bole wrote:
>
> > G Dahler wrote:
> >
> >> "Andrew Hardy" <junkmail@[127.0.0.1]> a écrit dans le message de
> >> news:c7nm36$5qe$1@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We're using an E450: 'Sun Enterprise 450 (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)'
> >>> with 1Gb of RAM as a development platform.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> We recently replaced a similar UE 450 2Gb RAM machine by a Sun 280R
> >> (1.2 Ghz
> >> single CPU, 5Gb RAM) and found the machine to perform as good (if not
> >> better) than the 450. Technology (eg. disks) as improved a lot since the
> >> 450, that gives a good boost in performance.
> >>
> >> I would not run anything else than solaris or Linux on the Intel
> >> Platform,
> >> otherwise, your CPU will be busy managing the GUI and useless stuff
> >> instead
> >> of your database. But other people may actually like windows for
> >> whatever
> >> reason (maybe they have MSFT stock :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If you go to a site like Dell or Red Hat, you should be able to find
> > some white papers with Oracle performance test comparisons to Sun (and
> > probably other competing vendors).
> >
> > We have done several tests of both batch and transactional processing
> > and found that a shiny new Intel/Linux box vastly out-performs the
> > five-year-old Sun/Solaris hardware we use. Vendor support is a
> > different and less positive story, however...
> >
> > --Mark Bole
> >
> >
>
> I bet a shiny new Sun would outperform a five year old Sun, too.

particularly one with 4 Opterons under the hood, with a penguin inside.

Pd

"Paul Drake" <drak0nian@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1ac7c7b3.0405101322.7a8820d3@posting.google.c om...
>
> particularly one with 4 Opterons under the hood, with a penguin inside.
>

The OP problem is that he does not want to pay for the 4 processor licence.

On Mon, 10 May 2004, Andrew Hardy <junkmail@[> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We're using an E450: 'Sun Enterprise 450 (4 X UltraSPARC-II 296MHz)'
> with 1Gb of RAM as a development platform.
>
> We have to buy new licences for Oracle database. As the current box has
> 4 CPUs we have to buy the Oracle Standard Edition with the equivalent of
> 100 user-licences. We have around a dozen real users...

Do you mean Enterprise Edition? Standard Edition was a low cost option
for up to 4 CPU's.

But, looking at the Oracle store, I don't see the plain Standard Edition
anymore. Anyone know if they got rid of it? It's still listed in the
user minimums, but I don't see it otherwise.

A V240 isn't that much if you want to stay with Solaris, or a Xeon-based
Linux server is viable.

Leach wrote:


>
> But, looking at the Oracle store, I don't see the plain Standard Edition
> anymore. Anyone know if they got rid of it? It's still listed in the
> user minimums, but I don't see it otherwise.

Don't know which Oracle Store you are looking at, but the Canadian
http://oraclestore.oracle.com clearly shows the Standard Edition as the
first entry under the 'Database' tab.

However, it's not shown under the 'home' page - you have to click on the
database tab.

Never-the-less, the OP specifically asked for Enterprise Edition. That
suggests they have a specific reason in mind. They might need a specific
HA feature or a specific option. Or (as I've occasionally seen) they base
it on the recommendation by a 3rd party vendor who simply doesn't know
better.

/Hans

CJT wrote:

> Mark Bole wrote:
>
>> G Dahler wrote:
>>
>>> "Andrew Hardy" <junkmail@[127.0.0.1]> a écrit dans le message de
>>> news:c7nm36$5qe$1@sun-cc204.lut.ac.uk...
[...]
>> We have done several tests of both batch and transactional processing
>> and found that a shiny new Intel/Linux box vastly out-performs the
>> five-year-old Sun/Solaris hardware we use. Vendor support is a
>> different and less positive story, however...
>>
>> --Mark Bole
>>
>>
>
> I bet a shiny new Sun would outperform a five year old Sun, too.
>
>

I agree, but probably won't have the chance to find out hands-on...

I have had to listen to a development manager claim, in all sincerity:

"With [hardware platform X] we'll be able to write better SQL code,
since we won't have to deal with performance tuning so much".

Sigh.

--Mark Bole

In article <mA5oc.24445$FH5.724330@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"G Dahler" <yellow-shark@spamex.com> wrote:

> "Paul Drake" <drak0nian@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1ac7c7b3.0405101322.7a8820d3@posting.google.c om...
> >
> > particularly one with 4 Opterons under the hood, with a penguin inside.
> >
>
> The OP problem is that he does not want to pay for the 4 processor licence.

If you think that is bad, try the SAS licenses for sun machines.
Let's see: a U1 has more workunits than a U10. Go figure...

--
Mauricio raub-kudria-com
(if you need to email me, use this address =)