Forum OpenACS Development: Any info out there on moving old ACS sites to newer Oracle?
Export And Import, this process should not be that hard ..
Were you able to install 10g ??? if so, create a user for ACS and import the old schema into it, configure your server to read from this new database and run..
if you are facing a clear problem state it (Errors).
I had about 5 problem queries out of thousands, but until I fixed them the site was almost unusable with more than a few people. I didn't really find any pattern either. One was something like
select stuff from table union select stuff from dualThe dual apparently confused it. I did notice there is a dual optimizer in 10g
Moving to 9i wasn't difficult? Isn't it that all the references to "new" when creating packages and so on, need to be changed? Or it's almost an out-of-the-box migration ... ? I am curious ... :)
I also have a OACS 5.1 running on 10g on a clone of RHEL 3.0 ... I noticed that the web interfaces for the DB administration is taking almost 800MB of RAM !!! I can shut it down and then my server, which only has 1GB RAM becomes quite usable again ... I am not sure if that is actually something I should not do, because it might be stopping all the new features of 10g (like self diagnosis and almost self tuning thingies)
I run 10g on an Sun X1 with 768meg of ram no problem. It appears java is taking about 350meg but the RSS is only 61meg. Oracle has 400meg and uses pretty much all of it. Someday I'd like to benchmark Linux/Intel vs Solaris/Sparc. I know that's hard to belive, but my gut feeling is Solaris/Sparc has a better price/perforance ratio. Has anyone tried this with OpenACS?
There's also no indication that any of this is going to change soon, Sun hasn't been putting much money into Sparc development for years now, etc. In fact, the smart bet is that both the raw performance and price/permance lead x86 has over Sparc will steadily increase, not decrease. IBM's Power and PowerPC chips are the dark-horse contender here (behind AMD and Intel, of course), Sun's Sparc chips aren't even in the race anymore, and haven't been for years. Most likely they never will be again, either.
(For massive 64+ CPU SMP boxes, the story might be different, but that's an entirely different game, and I don't know the score there. Very few such machines are sold anyway, as they are very expensive.)
Thus I would be extraordinarily surprised if you can actually show that Solaris/Sparc gives you a better price/performance ratio than x86/Linux. But if you can, I'd be interested to hear it.
The upgrade required running on the 2 processor Sparc box for 3 months and I was concerned that this would be a problem. Much to my surprise it turned out to be faster and more stable than the NT box.
As I said there are lots of variables. The Sparc box had more memory but being 64bit it could make use of it. It also had the xRaid drive verses 12 10k scsi drives. I also suspect that Solaris is more stable than NT. Finally it was Oracle 8i on NT vs Oracle 9i on Solaris.
Perhaps this is more a 64 vs 32 bit difference. I'm sure on 32bit arithmatic an x86 would run circles around Sparc, but if you've got a 4gig dataset and the x86 has disk access and the Sparc does not, the Sparc will win every time. That combined with the fact I can buy a 1u new Sparc box for $999 leads me to believe that the price/performance is better for this kind of application at this time, although my guess is when the AMD 64bit chip becomes well supported this will no longer be the case.