Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!unmvax!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!drd!mark
From: mark@drd.com (Mark Lawrence)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Oracle Server on OS/2 versus UNIX: DBMS magazines Conclusion
Message-ID: <1991Apr22.123058.16037@drd.com>
Date: 22 Apr 91 12:30:58 GMT
References: <1991Apr15.135105.4759@drd.com> <378.280f6241@cai.com>
Organization: DRD Corporation
Lines: 27

In article <378.280f6241@cai.com> gupta@cai.com writes:
>A point that some might find of significance in this "benchmark" is that
>the machine used was a dual CPU multiprocessor.  The operating system
>OS/2 does not support symmetric multi-processing.  The SCO UNIX does.
>Now the people at DBMS wonder why UNIX is faster...

That's just the point, isn't it?  UNIX _can_ make use of more than 16 MB of
ram, OS/2 _can't_.  UNIX _can_ make use of more than one processor, OS/2
_can't_ (ad nauseum).  So why does any MIS shop worth it's salt even
consider moving to a dead-end closed solution like OS/2?  The only
advantage I can see is cost:  Microsoft is really pushing SQL Server on
OS/2 at the moment.  The same engine (essentially) on a SparcStation
class machine will set you back roughly five times the cost as OS/2.

Also, to set the record straight, they did get OS/2 to make some use of 
both processors:

"SCO UNIX also has the advantage of symmetrical multiprocessing. LAN
Mangers 2.0's multiprocessing option allowed the LAN I/O and file system
code to be dedicated to one processor while the rest of OS/2 and the
database server ran on the other.  Santa Cruz Operation's MPX option for
UNIX 3.2.2 was not nearly so lopsided.  While all IRQ handling would sit
on processor 1 because of a SystemPro quirk, all other processes would be
assigned to the less busy of the SystemPro's two 33 MHz 486 processors."
-- 
mark@drd.com
mark@jnoc.go.jp  $B!J%^!<%/!&%i%l%s%9!K(B  Nihil novum sub solem