[QUOTE]Originally posted by abhaysk
All these exagirated [sic] figures that you are giving are on paper...no where in reality ( Atleast I have seen )
Show me a 32Tb Oracle installation and I'll take your point.
MS SQl Server is not prefered where DB size will be in TB. Instead Oracle is prefered for DB ranging from few GB to Few TB ( < 50TB )...and above which Main Frames are prferred.
Really?!
That's very old propaganda now - SQL Server 6.5 (RIP) had a few problems on the storage limits, but they were mainly NT and BIOS related. These problems disappeared with SQL Server 7.0.
For instance, I personally administer, right at this moment, over 200 SQL Server databases, most of which are 5-10Gb, some of which are 50-100Gb in size. MS SQL Server 7 and 2000 handle these with consumate ease on servers which are 3-4 years old. All work 24x7, all give sub-second response times to 100s of users.
And all without a BIG price tag.
No problems.
So, kindly educate yourself.
It appears you're getting MSSQL Server mixed up with MS Access, which, IMHO, is cr*p. :)
I do happily concede and agree that Oracle is indeed a very good, very large database server, just like Sybase SQL Server. And that both, just like MSSQL Server, are equally capable of handling DBs in the 0-1Tb range. But for 99% of applications which DO NOT need TB's of data storage, Oracle is also exceptionally expensive. The ever plummeting sales figures prove it - Oracle has always made a huge chunk of it's money from consultancy, and businesses won't stomach it any more. As a result, Oracle has backed itself into a corner where its main product is increasingly a niche one which handles large databases very well, but which is overpriced for the vast majority of non-TB IT tasks. There is no doubting that Oracle is a good product, personal preferences aside. That's not the argument.
Simply, Microsoft (and IBM) have caught up.
Oracle no longer has the monopoly it once had. Such is life.
I'd love a Bentley to drive to work in each day, but I can't justify the cost of all that extra space in the back which I'm not needing. And the servicing costs would probably bankrupt me.
Same with databases, it's a simple business decision, not a technology one. If you don't need the very high end functionality, why pay for it?
It makes no financial sense.
To tell you in our systems MS sqlserver are being replaced with oracle...since MS sqlserver just craches if data exceeds 500GB or so....
Well, you're on you own there then Abhay. The independent figures speak for themselves - [MS]SQL Server sales grew 40% in volume last year. Oracle's didn't. As to them crashing when they exceed 500Gb, I've not personally experienced this. But as I stated, I don't use Access.
And the locking machanism in SQL Sever just sucks...
No row level locking huh?????
You ARE showing your ignorance of the product you're criticising. SQL Server 2000 has row level locking and it works just as well as Oracle's.
FYI, so did SQL Server 7.0, launched back in November 1998.
Suggest you read up on what you're talking about.
Then knock it.
[/B]
Only table level locking for any TRAN...and more sucking part is it will not allow you to read data when TRAN is active....
...see my previous comment...
Only good part is GUI, but if you are good at commands why would you need that?
Yep, for developers (and people weaning themselves off Oracle), I'm sure the GUI is really good, but most serious MSSQL Server DBAs use T-SQL as their tool of choice.
now coming to your 32TB file size ( max size )...do you how will OS ( WIN ) fumble while trying to retrive data from such files....
As I stated (but you probably didn't bother to read that either), a DBA would normally break a large database up into separate physical files, for both performance reasons (to remove table access hotspots, spread disk I/O over separate disk controller channels) and backup reasons.
As a DBA I would have expected you to know that.
And that MSSQL Server doesn't go through the normal NT file channels - it accesses the low level file system directly, which is one of the reasons it is so fast.
NO machaninsim for connectivity to DB(MS SQL SERVER) between Inter N/W ( Trusted Ones )... may it be through TCP or Named Pipes...
Really?
I connect to all of my MSSQL Servers via a trusted connection, every day. Infact, I've being doing it in SQL Server 2000, 7.0 and 6.5. Right back to 1996.
I must be doing something wrong ;)
Again, get to know your product before you preach incorrect information.
Architecture is worst...no major role for DBA's to tune DB coz it does all by itseld what it thinks better....
Interesting comment that, given that I make my living by performance tuning SQL Server databases. And have done for the last five years. Seem to have no shortage of work at present either.
May be it's all those ex-Oracle DBAs not understanding how to get the best out of their new product because they can't be bothered to read up on it.
Looks like I'll be in work for a while going on this thread...
As to architecture, it seems that Oracle's choice is causing them the limitations. Please see http://www.tpc.org for independent performance/price comparisons.
Makes interesting reading.
As does:
http://aolcom.com.com/2100-1001-274420.html
http://dev-www.sqlwire.com/news/article.php/1560501
I have a doc where Oracle/MS Sql Server is compared..
Do you want me send you?
Please do post it here so that everyone can see it and make up their own minds.
Besides, I like to keep my inbox free of junk.
