Server Sizing For Oracle Database

Question

Hi All,
I need a server sizing for the below mentioned architecture:
This application is basically for logistics company which we are planing to host it centrally with two server's one server for application and one for oracle database along with DR site (Other Location). There are four locations and each location will have 20 users who are going to access this application (20 x 4= 80 Users). We are using MPLS network of 35 mbps bandwidth.
1. Application server: Windows server 2008 R2
2. Database Server: Windows server 2008 R2, Oracle 11g r2
I need a server sizing documents.
Thanks........

Answer 1

EdStevens wrote:
Justin Mungal wrote:
EdStevens wrote:
user1970505 wrote:
Hi All,
I need a server sizing for the below mentioned architecture:
This application is basically for logistics company which we are planing to host it centrally with two server's one server for application and one for oracle database along with DR site (Other Location). There are four locations and each location will have 20 users who are going to access this application (20 x 4= 80 Users). We are using MPLS network of 35 mbps bandwidth.
1. Application server: Windows server 2008 R2
2. Database Server: Windows server 2008 R2, Oracle 11g r2
I need a server sizing documents.
Thanks........I'd seriously reconsider hosting Oracle db on Windows. Obviously there are many, many shops that do. And obviously it is often a case of the fact that they do not have (and choose to not acquire) expertise in Linux. But I've been in IT for 30+ years and have worked on IBM S-370 and its variants and descendents, Windows since v3, DEC VMS, IBM OS/2, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and Oracle Linux. The first Oracle database I ever created was on Windows 3.11 and at that point I had never seen *nix.  Now I am in a position to state that Windows is the worst excuse of an operating system of any I have ever used.  I am constantly amazed/amused by how often (at least once a month on schedule, plus unplanned times) that our Windows SA has to send out a notice that he is re-booting his servers.  I can't remember the last time we had to reboot a Linux server ( I have 4 of them)
Yes, I'm biased away from Windows, but that bias comes from experience. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see something that causes me to say to whoever is in earshot "have I told you how much I hate Windows?"I was going to refrain from commenting on that, as I assumed they're a Windows shop and aren't open to any other OS (but my assumption could be incorrect).
I haven't been working in IT for as long as many of the folks around here, only about 10 years. I'm a former system admin that maintained both Linux and Windows servers, but my focus was on Windows. In the right hands, Windows can be rock solid. If a system admin has to reboot Windows servers often, he is most likely doing something wrong, or is rebooting for security updates. It's never as simple as "Windows Sucks," or "Linux Sucks;" it all depends on who's running the system (again, in my opinion).
I have seen some windows servers run uninterrupted for so long no one could remember the admin password. But more often memory leaks and the "weekly update" (replacing last weeks bugs with this weeks) is the culprit.
Yes, it really is sad how often you have to reboot for updates if you want to keep your system current. Mind you, it's better to have the fixes then to not have them (maybe). I rebooted my servers about once every month at my old place... which is not that bad.
With that said, in my experience, Oracle on Windows is a major pain. It takes me much longer to do anything. Once you get proficient with a CLI like the bash shell, the Windows GUI can't compare.Agreed. One of my many complaints about Windows is the poor excuse of a shell processor. I'm pretty proficient in command line scripting, but still cringe when I have to do it. Practically every line of code I write for a command script is accompanied by the remark "this is so lame compared to what I could do with a shell script". Same for vi vs. notepad. But my real problem is the memory leaks and the registry. I'm fairly comfortable hacking certain areas of the registry, but the need to and the arcane linkages between different areas of the registry and how they influence 'process environment' remains a mystery to all but a tiny minority of admins. Compare to *nix where everything is well documented and "knowable". 
One (of many) anecdotal experiences, this with my personal Win7 laptop. One time it crashed and refused to reboot. A bit of a google search turned up some arcane keystroke sequence to put it into some sort of recovery mode on bootup .. similar to getting into the bios, but the keystroke sequence was much more complex .. it may have involved standing on one foot while entering the sequence. Anyway, it entered a recovery process I've never seen before or since and repaired everything. My first thought was "hey, that was pretty cool." Then my second thought was 'but only Windows would need such a facility.
Bottom line? To paraphrase a famous Tom Hanks character, "My momma always said Windows was like a box of chocolates. You never know just what you'll get."Haha... I like that one. Yes, the registry is definitely horrible. It's amazing to me that a single point of failure was Microsoft's answer to INI files.
I think Windows and nix have their places. Server work definitely seems more productive to me in a nix environment, but I think I'd jump off a cliff if I had to use it as my desktop environment day-in-day-out. The other problem is application lock-down; I can't blame the OS for that, but it's a reality... and using virtualization to run those applications seems to defeat the point to me.