Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

  • From: Jared Still <jkstill@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Oracle-L Freelists <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:02:15 +0100

The following article appeared in the DBA Village newsletter.

Anyone else see it?

There's no way to comment directly on the article there, so I'm
taking a whack at it here.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/deploy/sqlorpro.mspx

I took a look at one paragraph, the one under the heading 'Striping Data'.

> Oracle-type segments are not needed for most Microsoft SQL Server
installations.

What, SQL Server doesn't use tables or indexes?

> Instead, SQL Server can distribute, or stripe, data more efficiently with
hardware-based RAID ...

Still doesn't have much to do with a segment.

> The recommended RAID configuration for SQL Server is RAID 1 (mirroring) or
RAID 5
> (stripe sets with an extra parity drive, for redundancy).
> RAID 10 (mirroring of striped sets with parity) is also recommended, but
is much more
> expensive than the first two options.

Hmm...

Should I buy 10 disks for that 5x2 RAID10 volume?

Or should I just buy 10 disks and settle for 5 RAID1 volumes?

>If RAID is not an option, filegroups are an attractive alternative and
> provide some of the same benefits available with RAID. Additionally,
> for very large databases that might span multiple physical RAID arrays,
> filegroups may be an attractive way to further distribute your I/O
> across RAID arrays in a controlled fashion.

Sounds a bit like a tablespace.
Which is what the article was attempting to SQL Server didn't need
in the earlier comments about segments.

'nuff fun for one evening.

--
Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

Other related posts: