MySQL Lists are EOL. Please join:

List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message » Date:April 29 1999 3:20am
Subject:Re: Crash-Me Question
View as plain text  
Oracle enterprises scalability FAR exceeds 92.  Our installation is set to
accept up to 850 connections.............and we have done it successfully
on Solaris.  I have not heard of an install defaulting to 92 connections.
Perhaps it is WorkGroup or the NT version of the software.  Otherwise,
though, this seems unbelievable.  This number seems far too abitrary to seems like this must be a limitation OUTSIDE of Oracle.

Michael C. Montero
Chief Technology Officer
Community Connect Inc. Co-founder Member

-=-=-=-=-=  Community Connect Inc.  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Premier Source of Interactive Online Communities	494 Broadway				New York, NY 10012
	The Interactive Online Community for Those of Asian Heritage

-----  Your Message May Appear Below This Line

On Wed, 28 Apr 1999, Bill Culp wrote:

> I am a little confused by your Crash-Me comparisons.  First of all,  You say that you
> are comparing default configurations.  I find it a little hard to believe that UDB5 and
> Oracle default to about 100 maximum simultaneous connections.  I use UDB5 in a production
> environment with hundreds of users connected simultaneously and we havent hit the wall
> yet.  And we are only using the UDB5 workgroup edition not the Enterprise edition.  Are
> you comparing "personal edition" numbers here or what?  Also, what version of Oracle only
> supports 92 concurrent connections?  Do you expect me to believe that the most scalable
> database product in the world (which I believe Oracle is) defaults to that?  I am
> interested in your product but I find the Crash-Me test a little unbelievable.  Also,
> could you specify the crash test circumstances that make a database "Crash-Me" safe?  You
> seem to be suggesting that MySql is crash proof.  The products you list as not safe are
> all NT platform installations.  Are you trying to say something about NT or the database
> servers themselves?  Would the Unix versions of these products pass your test?  Why did
> you single out NT when all of these products except for Access run on many flavors of Unix
> as well?  Bill Culp

Crash-Me QuestionBill Culp29 Apr
  • Re: Crash-Me QuestionAsianAvenue.com29 Apr
    • Re: Crash-Me QuestionMichael Widenius29 Apr
  • Re: Crash-Me QuestionLuuk de Boer29 Apr