Printable View
Hi Friends.
I am curently having discussions with a SQLServer Guy who believes that SQLServer is the best RDBMS available.
I am trying to argue the case that Oracle is better but don't know what real advantages it has over SQLServer.
Considering that I am representing Oracle DBA's here can anyone give me a rundown of why Oracle is better so that I can put him in his place once and for all.
Cheers
Suresh
Here's the best reason.
IT'S NOT A MICROSOFT PRODUCT!
Hi Suresh,
Why dont you use the search option available at this site and use the search option on
http://www.google.com
In the search option just type the following
"oracle vs sqlserver"
and click search
I did that today I found so many links and discussions going on
Hope this helped
Regards
Follow the general rule:
If the database size is < 100 GB, use SQLSERVER.
If the database size is >= 100 GB but <= 2000 GB, use Oracle.
If the database size is > 2000 GB, use Teradata.
Check the site: http://www.oracle.com
There is an article that talks why oracle is the best. Even though MS says that they are the best, it cannot scale like oracle. They can be managed easily, where as oracle requires some knowledge. Performance in oracle is always better when compared to the sqlserver, provided it was well tuned. On the other hand FYI, it was said that sql server surpassed oracle by a tiny margin on the last survey, for its cost, Oracle is now considering a cost cutting for its 9i. One other thing you can always square a person is asking that whether it could run at any platform, voilla, the argumentee's mouth would be ziped :D
One other thing that you can point out is that the world's largest database runs on ORACLE.
Hope these would help.
Sam
The world's largest database runs on Teradata not on Oracle.
Teradata is from which company? IBM? Thanks for help.
Teradata is from NCR.
The 2 big shops in US, WAL-MART and KMART have been using Teradata for the past 12 years. The DB size is more than 90TB as of today.
Hi, 14th June 2001 21:58 hrs chennai
Both Tamil and Sambavan has said in Crisp the truth still if you are not happy more to do a research go on with this.
1)Both (oracle & sql server) are based on RDBMS technology and this technology has follow some set of rules (E.F. Codd's rules). The maximum rules has been applied by oracle company, so far.
That's why it has worth.
2)http://www.baanfans.com/baanfans/forum/other/messages/627.html
3) A comment from a real time user from a web site
I have used MS SQL Server on several Windows NT only projects with ASP and ActiveX. I have used Oracle 8i with PHP. After getting used to Oracle, PL/SQL cursors etc., and Oracle 8i Java options I started complaining about MS SQL Server. MS SQL Server lacks many features of Oracle, so if you need the best of the best pick Oracle. The downside is, that in order to be able actually utilize all the nifty Oracle tricks you need pretty skilled programmers. And Oracle is pretty expensive. Another thing about Oracle is that it is a little thougher to administer. So I would choose Oracle on projects where you have enough skilled manpower.
4)A strong Wicket for Oracle
http://www.hronline.com/forums/hris/9905/msg00046.html
Oracle has well proven all ready with its DB market share.if it had been people would have gone for that. So this one is more than enough to say Oracle is a Leader as of now.
Good Luck for SQL Server in future.
Cheers
Padmam
Thanx to Tamilselvan, on correcting my spec on world's largest database. My assumption was based on the following link from oracle, I hope its true
http://www.oracle.com/features/insid...nvanie_04.html
Sam
Again, you should do a search of this forum, as we have covered this topic a few times already.
Just to rebut a few misleading points in this particular thread:
- SQLServer has the lion's share of the TPC benchmarks, which Oracle whole-heartedly backed until they started losing. Still, that is the only accepted 'standard' and SQLServer has most of them. Therefore, to say that Oracle is always faster is unsupported, IMHO
- To say that Oracle is a *little* more difficult to administer is a *major* understatement. They could not be further apart. SQLServer is phenomenally easier to administer than Oracle. They are not even in the same sport, much less league, much less ballpark.
- "Because it's not a Microsoft product"? Have you actually compared most Microsoft products with most products from *any* other vendor? *Especially* Oracle. Oracle's products, by and large, are terrible. They seemingly have no ability to make things understandable. They are unable to design a good user-interface to save their lives. If you look at the products made from Windows 3.0, you might start to see similarities to Oracle interfaces, they are *that* far behind the curve.
Also, what is the big "we hate Bill" thing all about anyway? I'm sorry, Mr. psychopath Ellison is better how? And McNealy? They are birds of a feather. They are megalomaniacs trying to out-boast each other in search of your approval and dollars. Trying to distinguish one from the others is pretty much pointless and practically impossible. To actually try to support that one is 'good' while the others are 'bad' is nothing short of either political posturing or religious faith, with as little foundation in truth as either one.
- As for functionality in one vs the other, there are several glaring ommisions in Oracle as well. The inability to create a case-insensitive database is unforgivable, IMHO. Their implementation of 'temporary' tables is pathetic. They have multiple code bases, a separate SQL engine for PL/SQL, and several constructs that don't show up in EXPLAIN PLANs. Yeah, Explain Plans - there's another idiotic implementation. That and the DUAL table - ridiculous.
- As for market share proving the point - let's get real. Everyone knows that Beta was a better format, yet it is dead. The Mac may be a better machine and Quattor Pro may have been a better spreadsheet, but they all lost the race for market share. That's because the market share race is not necessarily won by the best product. there are wayyyy too many factors involved for things to be that simple. For example, the armies of Oracle devotees here who are ready to duke it out that Oracle is better yet know practically nothing about SQLServer itself. These companies are masters at FUD, at stretching the truth and at boasting about any percieved advantage. On the flip side, let's actually look at SQLServer's share - it was 0% 7 years ago - now its almost 20. I wonder what the next 7 years will hold.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a Microsoft zealot in any way, shape or form. Sun either, or IBM, for that matter. I think they are all incredible companies that have made some incredible products (and an incredible amount of money). They have all made some incredibly idiotic mistakes as well, but that is human nature. However, one must have an open mind when comparing and contrasting these companies and their products. I have been using only Oracle for several years now. I have found many places where it is better than SQLServer. I have found many where it is not. They are two significantly different solutions to the same problem, and they are both pretty darn good at it. I would have to say the same for IBM. They have been back with a vengeance lately. They claim to be incredibly cheaper than Oracle in TCO. They also have an optimizer that most people agree beats Oracle's hands-down. They also have more entries in the TPC benchmarks than Oracle. Right now, the race is too close to call. Good luck in your religious argument with your friend, however ;)
Rant over
- Chris
Well Said Chris!. Criticism/Appreciation should be from the the supporting features, ease of use and ease of maintenance, management perspective not from personal intrerest or the eason of you having expertise in that particular product.
9i Relaese is geared towards ease of administration, maintenance and management. Let's see how these products market change in couple of years...
[Edited by sreddy on 06-14-2001 at 11:26 PM]
Hi All,
I'm a newcomer to this list. I'm actually a SQLServer DBA
working for a Reinsurance company at NYC.
Having been working as a DBA for almost 3 years and also
having programmed in Oracle 7.0 6 years before, I feel I can
contribute something to this thread.
I started of working on SQLServer as a DBA with 6.5 ver.
I was the one who migrated the DBs to 7.0 & now to SQL2K.
Out of my practical experience, let me assure you that SQLServer has matured a lot. With SQL7.0, we got a performance gain of 80% and it was a compelling reason for
us to migrate all our server to 7.0 and this was about 2 years
before.
As if this is not enough, WIN2K & SQL2K arrived and I tested
this combination and many of you Oracle guys will not believe
it. I got a performance gain of 40% with WIN2K/SQL2K over
WIN4.0/SQL7.0.
How much is the performance gain in all ?. I will leave it to u
guys to calculate.
I was trying to install Oralce 8i on Solaris 8 for intel at
home and have failed once and I plan to give it another try
this weekend. I was laughing at the complexity of the whole
installation process and this is when I actually began to appreciate SQLServer's simplicity. Even a school student will
install SQLServer in a breeze.
SQLServer's simplicity is incomparable. The Books On Line
itself is enough for one to learn anything and everything on
SQLServer. What about Oracle ?. It is a shame, neverthless,
I would like to admit that not even one Oracle book talks
about Oracle installation well. There are so many parameter
files such as oratab, tnsnames.ora, oracle_SID.ora ...etc.
No book explains which of the files comes first, when each of the files are created ... etc. A beginner who is try to learn
Oracle DBA dont u think he will bewilderd with its complexity.
You might ask, so what has all this got to do ?. The reason
why we decided to stick with SQLServer is for its simplicity
and the reason of the CTO of our company.
Take WIN & Win2K for example. I have about 20 SQLServers
itself in a seperate NT Domain, & how many NT administrators
do I have. None. How about Unix.
Administration is so easy in SQLServer. I remember, once
one user telling me "Oh, is that all. Click, Click & Just fill in
the blanks. Cool". This from a user who wanted to add some
records into a table. With SQL7 & above, the Enterprise Manager (EM) presents a grid like object to create & input data. Is there a tool like this in Oracle.
With SQL-DMO, one can, with COM programming - not COM
component programming, develop his own Enterprise Manager. He can even use ASP to administer his server over
the WEB. IS this possible with Oracle (I dont know ).
Replication was introduced in SQLServer with 6.0 & when was
it introduced in Oracle. Was it in 8.
I have seen people making passionate & biased statement
which we all have made when we were in school, & Man, what
ever happened to those education that we had in school & college.
The point is, it will be easier for us to understand that Technology & Intelligence is not only Oracle's or Ellison's
Prerogative. These are as pervasive to Microsoft as it is to
Oracle & SUN and the performance gain with WIN2K/SQL2K
itself proves that.
This being the case & with P4 chip, I would not be surprised
if Microsoft beats SUN & Oracle in the coming years.
I have some questions on Oracle installation & I would very much appreciate, if someone would answer them.
All queries & criticisms are welcome :).
Thanks,
gopi ([email protected])
Hi! All
Had Oracle Been developed only on Microsoft platform then I think they would have assured that the installation was smooth. BTW I have installed ORacle on Solaris many a times I find it very smooth. The new Oracle Universal Installer is a good product. Moreover since it is in Java the look and feel of installation is same accross all platforms.
I am not commenting on SQL Server as I have not used it.
BTW Installing Oracle on Win 2k is very smooth.
As for management DBA TOOL which comes with Oracle 8i client is also a good tool to manage yr database.
It is right to say that there are no good tools for data entry from Oracle. There is no Grid like data entry screen and you have to depend on tools like TOAD, SQL Navigator (Got to think abt their business also, Oracle Does).
http://www.dbasupport.com/forums/
Cheers
Hi Gopi, 15th June 2001 11:13 hrs chennai
Welcome to DBAsupport.com as a new member and becoming part of this Big Team.I am sure in near future you will particpate in techincal soution on Oracle problems too and enjoy.
Before going in to your post i would like to comment some thing.
The DB marketshare also depends on the products for Eg VB with SQL server, Oracle Apps with Oracle.
Once VB had a very good market share before this CRM or ERP'S came to market its SQL server DB market share even increased 2 years back by 3% in a year.Still vb has its good market share in client server side.
I dont believe in this market share each company is releasing different kind of statistics which one to belive i dont know but one thing is common in all surveys i.e Oracle As of Now has edge over the others.
oracle proves in its iDevelop2000 conference with top 9/10 websites name that is running on oracle.
as chris said it was 7 years SQL-server has grown so much lets wait to see how much it gows in to future.
Now as of every one should have known that Oracle APPS is growing or to say even leaping by bounds in Gulf,US,UK and other countries too.So end users prefer the same companies DB due to compatible issues and other issues.
Because of oracle Apps even Oracle Forms and Reports is little bit picking up now.
Meanwhile DB2 too is betting heavily with Linux platform for future .we should not rule out that DB2 is next to Oracle in competition.
There are various issues on each companies DB plus and minuses and also it depends upon end user companies liking and requirements etc.yes there is also another factor Marketing which is also Vital for Going up or down.
Coming to gopi issues:
===============
How much complexity you feel installing oracle on NT ?
====================================
Its real easy way as you feel the same for SQL server.Just load the CD in CD-ROM drive and oracle Universal Installer will guide you through installtion on a server.
i dont know where come you find the problem.
||rly if you install from client side its very easy and to configure the same via Net easy configuration.
How much complexity you feel on Installing oracle on Solaris ?
========================================
If that is going to be an installation on a any Unix flavor i accept its not a simple job at first attempt either for SQL server or Oracle even for any DB.
You have to create a directory,groups ,mount points,
Create the Oracle UNIX Administration Account etc
i think this should be same for even SQL server or any other DB.
This is not beacuse of DB that is due to o/s requirements.
OK do you need an installation guide of each step by step how to install oracle on Solaris ? I have an pretty good Installation guide in pdf format.
Please no personal request to my personal mail id from all please if required i will contribute it to DBAsupport.com from where anyone can utilise it.
I have also an excellent solaris-oracle installation manual as a hard copy.It deals in detail all aspects of pre-installation,post installation for Parallel server etc.The name of that is
Release 8.0.5 for Intel UNIX(DG/UX intel,NCR MP-RAS,solaris Intel) Installation Guide.
Simillarly for all release and for different platforms manulas are available.it depends on the CD you brought from Oracle.
I am also sorry to say that you have told that no books says which has to configured first etc all are there its regardless all companies have there excellent manuals i think you have not gone in to that.
I too had big problem with win2000-Oracle combine and i have too reported the same in this forum so i cannot blame win2000 it has to evolve and they have to fix up the bug.This is common problems each product faces.
we dont have anything against any product let Our team have very open mind on all this.
Note i have too worked on SQL-server and planned to learn its DB issues and DB2 too.I have planned to know many more DB flavors in near future .
lets move hand in hand to share our time,knowledge for our upliftment.
Cheers
Padmam
Technology wise I am not worred working with Oracle since they always comes out with pretty good eatures
Price wise I am really worried, just had a talk this morning with some collegue, to run Oracle a company had to spend 6 times more if the company used SQL Server. This in the long run Oracle will definitely die
Had a meeting with some customer yesterday with two Oracle Sales Engineer and our customer complained to Oracle that in their company software/hardware budget Oracle occupies the highest spending... simply too expensive
If I am Larry I would be really worried
[Edited by pando on 06-15-2001 at 04:45 AM]
I worked on SQL Server 7 , Oracle Server 7 , 8 , 8i .
Oracle is a database for universe , it is the most affordable scalable ever .
At every site I visited you find everything from Microsoft except the database it is always always Oracle.
SQL server is for small to medium sized enterprises But Oracle is for the Big ones.
Oh, they are worried. See http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200...html?tag=tp_prQuote:
Originally posted by pando
Price wise I am really worried, just had a talk this morning with some collegue, to run Oracle a company had to spend 6 times more if the company used SQL Server. This in the long run Oracle will definitely die. Had a meeting with some customer yesterday with two Oracle Sales Engineer and our customer complained to Oracle that in their company software/hardware budget Oracle occupies the highest spending... simply too expensive
We can go back and forth on the features of SQL Server and Oracle forever. We have replication, we have temporary tables, we run on unix, we are cheaper.... The whole issue comes down to what database will perform better in the enterprise. Most companies today are not startup companies. They have an entrenched OS and administrators for that OS. If you are a Unix shop, you are probably going with Oracle. If you are a MS shop, you are probably going with SQL Server.
As of May 22, 2001:
Oracle widened its lead to 33.8 percent of the overall database market in 2000, up from 31.4 percent in 1999, according to a study released Wednesday by research firm Gartner. IBM remained in second place, eking out a small increase in market share from 29.9 percent to 30.1 percent. Microsoft jumped from 13.1 percent to 14.9 percent.
Microsoft did surpass Oracle in one key area. In 2000, Microsoft narrowly topped Oracle 38 percent to 37.3 percent to claim the top spot in market share for database software that runs on the Windows NT and Windows 2000 operating systems.
Sureshy, I would suggest you talk to your management to choose Oracle. The reasons are said above. A few years back, a lot of people arguing that Microsoft products are getting more and more popular and it is true, but whether you have noticed it or not, the high paying jobs are unix related, not windows platform related. Probably I am wrong. Even those who are arguing that Microsoft products are better and easier to use, they themseleves are having jobs unix related, simply because these jobs are paid higher. I myself started with Oracle on Sun Solaris and still stick to Sun Solaris(but I am not System Admin).
See http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20010614S0020 for followup on the new pricing structure...Quote:
Originally posted by marist89
Oh, they are worried. See http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200...html?tag=tp_pr
[/B]
Let me add some spice to this discussion.
1. Cost of oracle?
Don't worry. Oracle is now proposed to reduce the price on its 9i. This was a news on yesterdays cnet news. So there is light in the horizone for pando.
2. Coming to the points Gopi made:
Welcome to this group.
Point A: " a user asked ... is that all CLICK, CLICK ...."
Yes, "Click" makes your life easy, but should you not forget, it would be of no help if you don't know much on the power of command prompt workings. The other thing is that, MS, infact had taken the "CLICKIE" comcept from the pineers of MAC. But when you even look into Mac they are in the path of Unix. Their latest OS hosts the unix under neeth. So welcome to the world of Unix.
Point B: How many administrators on Unix? ...
Yes, it is hard to work on unix, but if you know of the different kernel architectures, then you would learn to appreciate. But you also have to look, it is scalable beyond MS. Now blue screens, No application corruption would force a system reboot. Its always hard on windows to know what is doing what? removing a process would sometime even crash the entire system. Windows now only have started to use the file system security, where unix had been the pioneers. On looking at your args against Unix, I would think that you have a lot to catch up.
We all have to remember that Without problems, there is no Learning
One thing that always bugs me a lot about MS, is that as a market strategy, they want to set their eveil foot prints into every single industryy in this world. They are for software privacy, gets millions and millions for the support, which at times they can't even solve, but would bill you for. Example their exchange server :o As other folkd pointed out, I'ld keep my eyes open for the DB rather than SQL server.
Padmam, I doubt that SQL Server is there for the Unix platforum. Correct me if I wrong.
I beleive that some of the participants might get offended by my passionation for non MS products, I'm very sorry for that. I'm primarily for the Open Source, which alone could lead the world to its destiny :D
Critisizms welcomed,
Sam
Hi All,
Thanks for welcoming to this club.
Let me first Address Padmam's post.
<>
I have no interest in learning Oracle on NT. I'm only interested
in Oracle on Unix. So I have not even looked at Oracle/NT.
<>
As far as I'm concerned, I have personally felt Oracle Installation on Solaris to be tough (or for that matter on Unix).
May be I have overlooked, could u please name a book which
talks about the Installation in Detail. I bought the Solaris 8 for
intel Pack from SUN directly & with that I got a Oracle 8.1.7 CD. if u r referring to the two pdf file that comes with the CD,
then I do have it.
Did you all see how Dragon argues. He says, "Ask the company people to buy Oracle since Oracle jobs are better
paying". Now is the discussion about One's Pay or about which product is better. If it is about ones pay then lets all
become Drug smugglers. Isnt their plenty of money. Man,
If u cant contribute to a forum please dont spoil the forum.
I have realised that most of the Pro-Oracle fans give all
reasons but the facts.
Coming to the Sambavan's points.
You say that with the new pricing policy, Oracle will be cheaper. But how much cheap. Cheaper than SQLServer.
Besides who cares about the initial cost. Does anyone. But
every CTO will be more worried about the Resources Cost.
Reducing the cost of Oracle will not reduce the cost of Hardware, Manpower, Development time ... etc. How do u
argue to this point.
Coming to ur 2nd point. Will you explain to the CTO of a
company about the Unix Internals, Oracle Internals ... etc
and convince him about the product. Try this & let me know
how many CTOs u have convinced.
SQLServer is available only on NT.
But, keep in mind. Every time Ellison puts up those challenges,
he seems to b under the impression that technology, R&D, &
programming is only his & Oracle's Prerogative. And every
time, companies like Microsoft, Kiva Corp, Siebel have proved
him wrong.
Thanks for reading my comments. Since people seem to be
going off topic, I would like to stop my contribution to this
thread and do something else.
Thanks,
gopi
Originally posted by grajee
Coming to the Sambavan's points.
You say that with the new pricing policy, Oracle will be cheaper. But how much cheap. Cheaper than SQLServer.
When Oracle say it is reducing the price, you have to appreciate that concept itself. But is going to be a considerable amount
Besides who cares about the initial cost. Does anyone. But
every CTO will be more worried about the Resources Cost.
Reducing the cost of Oracle will not reduce the cost of Hardware, Manpower, Development time ... etc. How do u
argue to this point.
Just to refresh, oracle is available for pentium Solaris, Solaris, HP, VAX,NT, Digital Aplpha, Compaq, AIX, Linux. What else would you want? If the company wants to compete in the market, they have to invest in one of these. When you say SQL, you are restricted to only NT/2000. "Awake up!!!" Cost of hardware had become very negligible these days, so it is not an issue for most of the front runner CTOs. We run Oracle on multiple flavours. The hard ware was not an issue, now we are negotiating with oracle for a site license. If that comes through, we would be ready to rock and roll :D
Will you explain to the CTO of a company about the Unix Internals, Oracle Internals ... etc and convince him about the product. Try this & let me know how many CTOs u have convinced.
Yes, its your duty as a DBA to enlighten your CTOs, and provide all the pros and cons in a best explained manner, that could convince your point. I've convince my folks to go for a site license. You are most of the time expeceted to posses these knowledge of Architectural information. In fact, my advice to you would be to learn the oracle architecture bfore starting to play, that would make your life a lot easy to undestand. You can twigue a lot of things in oracle to get a performance.
But, keep in mind. Every time Ellison puts up those challenges,
he seems to b under the impression that technology, R&D, &
programming is only his & Oracle's Prerogative. And every
time, companies like Microsoft, Kiva Corp, Siebel have proved
him wrong.
They are all a CEOs BIG PICTURE.Infact Siebel is one of the oracle's primary customers, who make use of Oracle
[b] Please, do not get offended or defended by things that have been said on this forum. Some times the posts do stirr up things and bring lot of things to light. Share your thoughts and widen your knowledge[b]
Peace,
Sam
Dear Gopi, 16th June 2001 14:02 hrs chennai
Thank you for letting me know the information SQL server runs only on NT.
I have already told you that there are lot of difference between running on NT and UNIX.Its not oracle mistake or o/s mistake too.Then the point of discussion varies to O/S side.
Has how you have said installation was easy comparing SQL server and oracle i had to pin point that installation of Oracle was as same easy as SQl server on NT.Then you should not have compared Oracle was tougher compared to SQL server installation ?because platform was different
Reg the o/s requirements of Unix not only that Oracle DB any DB has to follow certain o/s requirements.particularly as i have explained you some basic requirements in this thread.For this you should have been really have some exp on solaris (any unix)like groups,user creations,mounting the directory etc.
For that matter on LINUX its little bit differs but otherwise as same as Oracle on Sun.
I dont know what pdf content it contains reg oracle installation.
if you could mail me i could tell if that is what you are speaking all about. mail id
[email protected]
Regarding the book i told was the original Installation manual oracle gives along with CD.if you have not got it please mail him over your present country support via http://www.oracle.com for the same explaining your situation.Even you can call your local oracle support for the same.Do you have the licence version of oracle or else it was a developer CD which SUN would have co-promoted along with his o/s.?
I have a pdf format which takes you through step by step instaltion process of Oracle on solaris.
Please dont get offended by not participating further in this argument .I know for Sambavan or Dragon they are one among like us and have been always very contributive to this Big Team lot of times and i have never seen them to hurt any ones fellings.
Thats why i told you to be contributive further in this team in future at first.May be it all depends on there personal opinion lets get cool on that. we are all in same ship to share ,learn and enhance ourself.I was also looking at sun solaris very much glare till a month back but once i sat down to learn it and get certified myself (certification main purpose to learn well sun which would help me in initial stages).I had been success also on that.Looking for 2nd paper shortly.Plan to learn Linux also shortly.
I really feel now happy on that (Unix)side too now.
The main reason behind this was while i worked with CITIBANK projects of DB size 1350 GB they were using oracle on sun.
Why even hotmail server is running on sun.I learned that MS is one of the largest vendor for SUN o/s.
So i am very much eager to look forward for your continued support and participation in this forum and enjoy it as a team.
This argument is good to discuss
=====================
Now is the discussion about One's Pay or about which product is better.
This is looks real bad
==============
If it is about ones pay then lets all become Drug smugglers. Isnt their plenty of money. Man, If u cant contribute to a forum please dont spoil the forum.
This is Wrong
=========
I have realised that most of the Pro-Oracle fans give all
reasons but the facts
I dont know what you think about others oracle fans in other forums but here i feel many likes to be more subject oriented and they dont feel any parity between this is good and that is bad.I was also once had very high respect while working with SQL server as best and later working with Oracle that was best but after myself joining this DBAsupport.com and paticipating in DB2 conference one thing i understood is all are good and finally the fittest will survive.
I understand and respect your feelings and you have all privelege to air your views in a democratic manner .lets us come out of this .I look forward your mail to help you feel how best and easy oracle installation on solaris.First time it looks little bit tougher then its real cool.This because of particular O/S requirements.For this matter let it be any Unix flavors.
Cheers
Padmam
HI Padmam,
I'm not offended, rather, sometimes, I feel it is a waste of time when people deviate from the point.
I will contribute to this club, though, I'm not sure to what
extent.
How did u get ur Solaris Certification done. Is it on SOlaris 8
for SPARC or Solaris 8 for intel.
Check my next post !!
Thanks,
gopi
Dear Gopi, 17th June 2001 19:18 hrs chennai
I am so happy that you have responded very positively i am sure in future you will really feel and enjoy after some time how good this forum is.
I have really benefitted myself or i owe much to this forum for my knowledge enhancement.Many a times i have gained and able to share knowledge which keeps us to know several things which i am sure even by reading or doing in real time would have gained less.Since all are here with problems that i love a lot.
There is no certification on o/s or hardware based like say intel or sparc or for win2000 or Sun for OCP as well as for SUN Solaris.It will be generalised.
Its all common.But the Questions on OK boot prompt you cannot work on Intel based system etc while practicing.
Since this forum is dedicated entirely to ODBA kindly mail me or come to Certification forum in the same site where i can give you lots of tips which i am sure is 100% success gurantee to pass the certification.Shortly i am also going to post a thread in How to Forum which will benefit all on solaris.
Oh i did it on solaris7.
Cheers
Padmam
Every software has its own birth and death.
No exception at all.
During 1980s, Informix ruled the RDBMS market with highest market share followed by Oracle. The BIG 3 automobile companies, GM, Ford and Chrysler in US still run Informix for most of their critical applications. But in 1990s, Oracle had overtaken Informix and it became #1. Now, IBM bought Informix and they have 2 RDBMS, DB2 and Informix. It is anybody's guess that which product IBM is going to market. This is how technology is growing, when new product comes into the market, the old one dies.
Assume that Bill Gates buys Oracle for $30B, obviously he will close down Oracle and will ask the customers to move on to SQL Server.
Today, the power of Intel processor is growing fast. What we had achieved in RISC processor 3 years ago can be done in CISC (Intel) processor. Most of the CTOs and CEOs do not bother what technology the IT dept is using. All they need is how quick they access data from the computer and analysis it. They want to run the business with minimum cost with minimum over head, so that profit can be shown at the year end.
The time is not far away that SQL Server would surpass Oracle.
I dont think minimum cost is compatible with minimum over head.... it's like I say I want to buy a car which is gonna be cheap and use little petrol and runs fast :pQuote:
Originally posted by tamilselvan
They want to run the business with minimum cost with minimum over head, so that profit can be shown at the year end.
Oracle.
We have been installing Oracle on Linux lately so the cost becomes less coz license of OS is free... may be there are more ways to lower the cost
Hi All,
I agree with what Tamil Selvan says. Infact, the NASDAQ
himself talks about the cost effectiveness of the Itanium
chips mentioning the tremendouns cost effectiveness of
for NASDAQ.
Did u guys see my new thread about the installation
problem that I'have been having.
Also, I dont know how to copy the init.ora & other parameter
files onto a floppy from Solaris OS. Is there a way. If there
is a way I can email them to u alll.
Thanks,
gopi
Dear Gopi, 19th June 2001 10:07 hrs chennai
I will look in to your thread and get back.In which forum have you posted it ?
Cheers
Padmam
"Pando's statement: I dont think minimum cost is compatible with minimum over head.... it's like I say I want to buy a car which is gonna be cheap and use little petrol and runs fast "
People in US have started to buy Hybrid car from Toyota and Honda. Hybrid means combining gas and electricity. With these combination, 55 miles per gallon gas is already achieved where as other cars will give only 22 miles per gallon of gas. This car can go upto 100 miles per hour. The waiting time for the hybrid car is approximately 6 months.
Are you satisfied, Pando?
You WinNT guys might think 100 Mph is fast, but when you have broken the sound barrier on Unix, there's no turning back... http://www.dbasupport.com/forums/Quote:
Originally posted by tamilselvan
[BPeople in US have started to buy Hybrid car from Toyota and Honda. Hybrid means combining gas and electricity. With these combination, 55 miles per gallon gas is already achieved where as other cars will give only 22 miles per gallon of gas. This car can go upto 100 miles per hour. The waiting time for the hybrid car is approximately 6 months.
[/B]
No single Unix server can match the speed of IBM mainframe. That is why IBM still is number one.
Unfortunately SQL Server doesnt run on Mainframe :o
If you want speed with performance, choose IBM.
IBM can survive without Oracle and SQLSERVER.
grafee says:
Did you all see how Dragon argues. He says, "Ask the company people to buy Oracle since Oracle jobs are better
paying". Now is the discussion about One's Pay or about which product is better. If it is about ones pay then lets all
become Drug smugglers. Isnt their plenty of money. Man,
If u cant contribute to a forum please dont spoil the forum.
I have realised that most of the Pro-Oracle fans give all
reasons but the facts.
Please don't get me wrong. This is a forum for ORACLE dbas, is not for Drug Smugglers. I am very satisfied with being an ORACLE DBA. If you want to make more money by being a DRUG SMUGGLER, go head. But don't bull**** here. Please!!!
Dragon
Hey Tamilselvan,
I noticed earlier on one of the postings that you mentioned that the world's largest database runs on Teradata, could you be more specific on that, that is the kind of Client, the purpose it is used for?
Just curious to know about.
Sam
Sambavan,
Let us be practical. The largest DW database runs Teradata RDBMS in Wal-Mart which is more than 100 TB of size. The application is CRM. In K-Mart, the CRM DW database size is 92 TB as of today, again it runs on Teradata. My point is very clear. If your database size is around 100 GB, available options are SQL Server or Oracle. If it is more than 100 GB but less than 3 TB, go for Oracle. Any thing greater than 3 TB, choose Teradata.
Hmmm, http://www.dbasupport.com/forums/
That was a good information. Could you point me to some magazines that would talk about these concepts? Thanx for the info.
Sam