I couldn't care less about those multi TB databases and whose dad has larger one, but I've just came accross this article on oracle web site that touches the topic discused here lately: http://www.oracle.com/features/insid...nvanie_04.html
Printable View
I couldn't care less about those multi TB databases and whose dad has larger one, but I've just came accross this article on oracle web site that touches the topic discused here lately: http://www.oracle.com/features/insid...nvanie_04.html
Greetings all,
I worked in both Oracle and SQL server 7.0. I have seen oracle from 6.0 till 8.1.6 while I saw SQL Server just for a year. In one word, SQL Server is the worst database I have seen. In my learnings, I have found SQLServer to have many undesirable critical architecture. The first thing I do to evaluate a database is understanding the way it deals with a transaction, which anyone would agree, is the spinal cord of a database. SQL Server fails to address this issue hence the classical problem of readers waiting for writers to finish. Before, the SQL Server people start saying NOLOCK, use of NOLOCK in select would enable you to read what the writers are writing and not read the last committed state. So there is no commit unless you explicitly want to have but at the cost of locking the readers waiting to read or letting them read what you are unsure of. There is no business world transaction like this. This has a huge impact on your application design. Its a failure from the start. Then there are a number of such architectural stuff that makes SQLServer a really screwed up DB. I have never called SQLServer support or visit SQLServer forums, 'cos there is a universal answer to most problems. Add 'more memory, more disks, more processors'. Now why is it popular, the reason is that the decision makers go by immediate financial figures. 'Add more memory blah blah' is still cheaper than Oracle and by the time things explode one could always spend a few million dollars in re-engineering efforts. So there is no reason it shouldn't be popular either. Even AT&T's DW databases are in SQL Server approx 500GB. (I do get free stuffs from AT&T so I assume their dw works somehow .. or maybe not).
Oracle on the other hand is designed to be less OS dependent. But they all rely on random access disks which are optimised for OLTP. Since in DW world it is common to access huge chunks of data, the disks are not optmised, I need a white board to explain this. So even for Oracle scaleability is as far as the OS and disks can take. So a few terrabytes of data would cost a few million dollars in EMC storage solution alone when NCR teradata solved this problem and their storage solutions cost far less than EMC storage solutions. I am not aware if EMC is coming up with anything like teradata. So NCR scales up to anywhere, 100TB or even more. I don't have experience with NCR but I have heard good things abt them. In my experience in database design, everything works. it takes a long time to realize poor design and then its expensive. My cousin is a Most Valued Professional for SQL Server and has co-authored SQL Server Unleashed for a few chapters and he claims SQL2K to scale a terrabyte. Well he doesn't like it when I call him. Recently I made some decisions to continue being a DBA and entered into a managereal position in a 3 terrabyte DW team. Still this forum is in my bookmark and enjoy and learn from the threads. BTW, someone mentioned abt SQL Server on Unix. That would never happen 'cos they (MS) think win2K is better than Unix .. thats another story...
Waaw!!!
http://www.plauder-smilies.de/person/bandit.gifing with Oracle Pros. :D
Sam
[Edited by sambavan on 06-19-2001 at 11:45 AM]
Since MSSQLSERVER is not available on UNIX. I don't really understand how 24/7 machines will run on WINDOWS machines. As for no reason we needed to reboot the machine. Where as UNIX machine we are running without rebooting for more than 2 years.
And how to convince CTO, tell him whether he can afford rebooting the server when his busniess is running and let him make the decision.
may be 24x7 Windows servers are on Cluster so they can reboot one per day lol
Should one recommend a RDBMS based on the DBA's Salary
or for the Technology with which it is made up off.
Bye,
gopi
[Edited by sambavan on 06-19-2001 at 11:47 AM]
No wonder you are affended. Be happy with your SQL Server DBA
Dragon
[Edited by sambavan on 06-19-2001 at 11:48 AM]
Folks,
I have gone ahead and commented some of the offending remarks directed towards individuals. Please, make your arguments towards products, subjects and not towards individuals ...
Hope you can u.stand. I've only commented those remarks, and now would leave it to the individuals to remove it through editing. If any of you have any questions or remarks, I'ld be happy to answer to...
Keep going ...
Sam
sambavan: the "PC" police...Quote:
Originally posted by sambavan
Folks,
I have gone ahead and commented some of the offending remarks directed towards individuals. Please, make your arguments towards products, subjects and not towards individuals ...