Re: sql server2005 for a change in 3TB range
- From: "Rich Jesse" <rjoralist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: hrishys@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:34:07 -0600 (CST)
Sorry for the delay in replying -- I couldn't breathe from laughing so hard.
We have a *40GB* DB in SS and the corruption issues are nearly unbearable.
I think I've got it narrowed down to conflict in maintenance plans, where
the optimization job, trans log backup, full backup, and, ironically, the
integrity check job collide if the server's "too busy".
Granted, I've spent 10 years with Oracle and only a few months with SS, but
it seems more than coincidental that I've already repaired 3 (4? I lost
count...) corrupted objects, including a data page, and across two separate
servers. The only corruption I've ever had with Oracle was 7.3.4 on
Winders, where the exclusion list for BackupExec was missing the datafiles,
which apparently need to be locked while backing up.
Run! Run far far away! Save yourself! If you're like me, you'll find the
world of SS (and possibly Sybase) to be a tad archaic with the *need* for
index rebuilds and the brute-force locking. I guess I've come to take some
of the features of Oracle for granted. I now can see very clearly the
business advantage of Oracle, even at the SE One edition level.
HTH! GL!
Rich
> Hi
>
> I know this is a oracle mailing lists but just wanted
> opinion from folks here if your environments hosts any
> Terrabyte DB on Sqlserver 2005.
>
> regards
> Hrishy
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
