Re: Re : Losing out to SQL Server
- From: Nuno Souto <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 17:22:38 +1100
90% of the lore out there on MSSQL is completely wrong.
We run >>220 dbs in MSSQL and have done so for years, without a single
corruption anywhere.
Not saying it didn't happen in the past but since we moved everything to
2005 - and now to 2008 and starting on 2012 - there haven't been any.
And there are remarkably low number of performance issues, although I'd
not be game - yet - to run a VLDB in MSSQL. So far, Oracle's
partitioning is by far the best method to approach those.
I've been noting for nearly 6 years now that MSSQL is a credible and
usable alternative for vanilla corporate app dbs.
M$ spent a LOT of time and resources - with Jim Gray's "Personal
Petabyte" being one of the best examples - in learning and improving how
to handle large numbers of dbs, at a low cost.
While Oracle wasted all those years in the J2ee/confusion utter nonsense.
And MSSQL is REMARKABLY easier to work with in a VMWare virtualized
environment than Oracle will ever be with their insane licensing idiocy.
The results are now starting to reach the market. And will be making an
impact for quite a while.
My "No Moore" posts and other similar ones are still online and were
made in 2007.
Ah well: don't say I didn't warn about it...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
On 23/02/2013 4:15 AM, Kellyn Pot'vin wrote:
> I'm in agreement with Niall on this conversation and even though I am
> primarily Oracle, I would be a fool not to realize the incredible
> enhancements MSSQL has made in the way of datawarehousing and it's
> introduction to the big data arena, (yeah folks, it's out there and the
> Oracle folks are starting to notice...) Thomas Kejser does a great MSSQL and
> Big Data talk that he put on at MOW last year in Denmark. A number of us
> stuck around and talked big data without any platform bias and I was
> incredibly impressed with the direction the MSSQL guys were heading.
> As for tablespace translation in MSSQL, please read up on Filegroups, folks.
> Yes, that is MSSQL's version of a tablespace... :)
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
