J2EE
-
Christian Graus wrote: The Oracle bit tells me it's a religious decision ( Oracle sucks ), but I wonder, is it the same where you are ? I am curious, why is your company using Oracle, is it because they need the 'features' it has? My understanding is that people use Oracle because of the extra out of the box functionality provided with it, and I am talking about complex features and solutions, and its ability to run huge(and I mean huge) databases without crumbling. Or is it just the name, or customer requirements? I would like to hear the experience of anyone with huge Oracle deployments? Christian Graus wrote: Is J2EE entrenched as far as the big leagues go ? No doubt about that, especially here on the east coast of the US.
A.A. wrote: and its ability to run huge(and I mean huge) databases without crumbling. I've ran huge (and I mean huge) databases with SQL Server 2000 and never had a problem. But I've seen small (and I mean small) databases crumbling with Oracle and people struggling with the Oracle Client over and over again. I see dumb people
-
My boss tells me that as we go for bigger and bigger projects, we more and more are bidding on J2EE rather than .NET projects, using Oracle. The Oracle bit tells me it's a religious decision ( Oracle sucks ), but I wonder, is it the same where you are ? Is J2EE entrenched as far as the big leagues go ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002Christian Graus wrote: Is J2EE entrenched as far as the big leagues go ? Yep. It is at my place. And all the projects that have been built around J2EE which is our corporate standard have gone way over cost and have major performance issues. To be honest though I would say its down to very bad architecture and implementation. One project they have kept skipping databases e.g. Sybase to Oracle, which as far as I'm concerned are both a bad choice. Luckily as I deal with the clients directly and build tactical rather than strategic solutions, I get to choose what I want to get the job done. I've seen some of our more adaptabe competitors using .NET and I was speaking to a recuitment person the other day about it, Yhey where saying that they have clients that have been using .NET in production since the beta version and its working really well. If it .NET takes off zt all, this will be the year that it does.
-
A.A. wrote: and its ability to run huge(and I mean huge) databases without crumbling. I've ran huge (and I mean huge) databases with SQL Server 2000 and never had a problem. But I've seen small (and I mean small) databases crumbling with Oracle and people struggling with the Oracle Client over and over again. I see dumb people
Daniel Turini wrote: I've ran huge (and I mean huge) databases with SQL Server 2000 and never had a problem. Just a quick question to verify we are on the same page. What does huge mean to you? To me it means 500 Terabyte systems, not 500 Gigabyte systems. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Daniel Turini wrote: I've ran huge (and I mean huge) databases with SQL Server 2000 and never had a problem. Just a quick question to verify we are on the same page. What does huge mean to you? To me it means 500 Terabyte systems, not 500 Gigabyte systems. "I will find a new sig someday."
I've coded a system for EQUIFAX's brazilian subsidiary, which collected, updated and reported information from a SQL Server 2000 database. The total data was not 500 TB as you say, it was "only" 1.6TB on an IBM Shark disk array and a 8-way 750Mhz system, with 4GB RAM. It updated daily about 2 milion records of credit information and calculated credit score reports for about 50 milion people on a database with a total 100 milion business transactions. That meant 2% of the database being updated daily and providing real-time credit score reports on Web, APPC, FAX and X-25. The machine was almost idling, and sometimes, when big data batch came, there was peaks of 10%~15% of CPU utilization. I'm curious, were did you use 500TB of data? You don't mean it's a big database of BLOBs, right? You for sure know that this kind of comparison is not fair. I see dumb people
-
I've coded a system for EQUIFAX's brazilian subsidiary, which collected, updated and reported information from a SQL Server 2000 database. The total data was not 500 TB as you say, it was "only" 1.6TB on an IBM Shark disk array and a 8-way 750Mhz system, with 4GB RAM. It updated daily about 2 milion records of credit information and calculated credit score reports for about 50 milion people on a database with a total 100 milion business transactions. That meant 2% of the database being updated daily and providing real-time credit score reports on Web, APPC, FAX and X-25. The machine was almost idling, and sometimes, when big data batch came, there was peaks of 10%~15% of CPU utilization. I'm curious, were did you use 500TB of data? You don't mean it's a big database of BLOBs, right? You for sure know that this kind of comparison is not fair. I see dumb people
Daniel Turini wrote: You don't mean it's a big database of BLOBs, right? You for sure know that this kind of comparison is not fair. Correct it is not fair. The total is a collection of the of input from many groups and yes does contain a fair amount of BLOB. I do not have the info to say how much of the total this was from what groups so I was not intending to make any judgements just wanted some numbers vs (yes hugh). My first guess would be 50 to 75% would actually be BLOB kind of data. So feel free to adjust the numbers. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
funny u should mention this cos i was just talking to a colleague today about java based stuff in the enterprise for example a java-based web server (like web sphere i believe) apparently totally sux performance wise against even apache but yet the big corporates seem to be adopting it the only reason we could think of was that the ibm suits come in and schmooooz the management and they get the feel-good factor going and adopt inferior tech cos they feel safe with big blue et al
"traffic lights are for people who can't make their own decisions"
biz stuff about melauren wrote: for example a java-based web server (like web sphere i believe) apparently totally sux performance wise against even apache but yet the big corporates seem to be adopting it Well, considering that the IBM Web Server in WebSphere is a branch of Apache known as the IBM HTTP Server, I find this hard to believe. Now, the Java processing portion of WebSphere may be slow, but the static HTTP Serving is the same as Apache, being that it is Apache. Jason Gerard qeou kai kurioV Iasou Cristou douloV
-
Well I am seeing more and more large companies go for not necessarily Oracle, but Java on Linux, with either PostGreSQL or MySQL (4.X series). I think that Microsoft is primarily to blame for this actually because they price their products so that most mortals cannot afford them. In this economy, it is not necessarily the best technology that wins (having worked extensively with both Unix/Linux/C++, Windows C++, Windows/.NET/C# and Java on Solaris, Linux and OS-X I have to say that in my opinion, the Microsoft solution in .NET is superior to Java), but the one that can do the job good enough, for the least amount of money. When the bleeding server software from Microsoft, costs more than the hardware it runs on, many businesses see a clear case for going Linux/Java/(PostGreSQL | MySQL) on the server. IMHO
The clients we deal with want something that will run on their current systems, i.e. Mainframes, big Unix boxes, etc. They don't want to have to buy new Windows hardware when their exisiting Unix systems that they have invested heavily in will run a Java app just fine. We also use Java so we don't have to maintain multiple code bases. We have one codebase that will run anywhere a compatible JVM is available, which currently is everywhere. We can take the exact same app and run it on Solaris, Linux, Windows, etc without even a recompile. Jason Gerard qeou kai kurioV Iasou Cristou douloV