RE: Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

Have a look at this one by your truly -  This
appeared on IOUG's SELECT as well btw. As a result, I had some notes
from M$ employees, and I had to explain *again* what read consistency,
locking, need for seperating redo and undo and all the good stuff that
Oracle has and M$ grasps for! [Apparently SS 2005 is supposed to have
overcome some of these problems - the literature is unclear still or I
haven't understood it well]
Ok - I drifted a little over to the dark side for a bit, but I am firmly
back on the Oracle side of things now =8->) Bouquets/brickbats/comments
about this article welcome.
John Kanagaraj <><
DB Soft Inc
Phone: 408-970-7002 (W)
Fear connects you to the Negative, but Faith connects you to the
Positive! I Jn 4:18
** The opinions and facts contained in this message are entirely mine
and do not reflect those of my employer or customers **


From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jared Still
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:02 AM
To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

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.

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

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

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. 


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
> 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: