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.

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

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
> (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 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: