There is even no init.ora file in SQL server, i.e., not much to configure.
it's so easy to configure and use SQL Server that many companies get the disks and find they can cope without a trained DBA.
Another fool acting like some spoilt brat. Kids talking in this forum.
Totally, agree with NDT and Tim, right, oracle should consider their prices on their solution. Not yet, you have'nt mention the license for the database. One of the stuffis also sitting on those unix box, and it's cost a lot. And we have'nt include all the application interface which is going to interact with the database. Wow, everything stuffs on oracle is really going to cost a bomb.
It's true, a lot of application data, run on MS SQL Server, it's does'nt really need to run on huge database like oracle. Unless, those company are really running huge and complex data, i certainly vow for oracle.
I believe everyone have heard of the win2k Datacenter server, this server was launch just to complete with the unix server. So far, no ppl have verify it, how powerful is this server. For what i know,the most high end server for sun solaris can run up to 106 processors, that's certainly is very very powerful server.
The difference between MS SQL 7 and 2000, not much difference, except 2000, there's XML support, and a new copy data wizard, other than that, not much different, same interface some more.
Guys for your information, HP in singapore are using oracle 8, not yet upgraded.
Okie guys, any more feedback are more welcome.
Have a great day at work.
MCSE,MCDBA,MCSD,CCNA,CCDA,CCSA,CCSE, MCSA, SCSA, OCP
Some customers are deciding on SQL Server
Several of our customer's are considering switching to SQL Server due to some of the reasons mentioned above. Some of the things I keep hearing are that they just want it to work and Oracle is difficult to configure (true). I am currently working with one customer who is actually thinking of going to SQL Server due to performance issues on Oracle (their DBA had db_block_buffers set to 8192 - whatever). I can kind of see their point in that it is pretty frustrating when you are trying to do something, run a report, migrate etc. Oracle requires you to jump through a bunch of hoops and wait around. However you get some "salesman" or "admin" that sits down in front of SQL Server, points and clicks and something actually happens, it must be a real head rush for them after dealing with something as relatively cryptic (in their eyes) as Oracle. To some customers, Oracle seems like a "black box" and to get something done they have to go through a DBA and are sometimes met with frustration (I have heard some customer's joke that DBA stands for "Don't Bother Asking"). People skills might also be part of the problem. Personally, I love Oracle, It is a great product but I also intend to get my MCDBA -- these days you have to be very diversified.
Oracle still suffers from the geek appeal that you usually associate with UNIX. Oracle have actively cultivated this view which has paid off until the last few years.
When people started to use MS Access and said, "Why can't Oracle be this easy?" the answer was "It's a toy, that's why!". Now SQL Server is competative that argument won't cut it anymore and Oracle and DB2 have been scrambling to improve usability.
I can't complain since it's kept me in work for years but it's wrong. Computers should be enabling people, not marginalizing them. Every year the DBs get bigger and harder to learn. The same will happen to SQL Server as more functionality is incorporated.
In addition we now have the XML fiasco. It's an enabling technology, not a programming language! 95% of it should be transparent to us but instead you can't go to the toilet without sending an XML document to your boss. Even the wash basin has SOAP.
Aaarrrggghhhhhhhhh! I can't take it.
I'm off to use VI to write some letters!
Re: Some customers are deciding on SQL Server
:-) Last year at an Oracle meeting, a DBA told me about a company who ran on Oracle, they have asked him to get and check on why selects are slow. They did not have a single index in the database! A big DB. When he asked why, they said that indexes should not be used because "inserts and updates are very slow then" :-) Finally, they did not agree to index even a one table....
their DBA had db_block_buffers set to 8192 - whatever
Wow, that customer is really a nut, if dun improve on the index, how they going to query those data fast as they have mention. Anyway, customer is still customer, advice is already given to them. It's still up to them to heed it.
Oracle or MS SQL server? I dun know man. It's seem to me , this two product are always trying to outshine each other.
Anyway, guys, thanks for the feedback,and have a great day at work.
MCSE,MCDBA,MCSD,CCNA,CCDA,CCSA,CCSE, MCSA, SCSA, OCP
Oracle was a long way behind in ths XML stakes prior the release of 9i. Primarilly becasue they only implemented a cut down version of XPATH therefore making it impossible to query and sort XML stored data through convention SQL methods. Although SQL Server and Virtuaso (XML specific database) at the time could handle xml quite easily.
I've done a bit of SQL quering and indexing of XML in 9i, and it seems to work well. Although I haven't seen it perform on large collections of data (i.e Millions of Rows).
OCP 8i, 9i DBA
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width