Re: sql server2005 for a change in 3TB range
- From: "David Barbour" <david.barbour1@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rjoralist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:20:01 -0500
We currently have a 1.2TB SQLServer 2005 Database used for Business
Objects. It breaks twice a week. We're putting it on Oracle.
On 11/8/07, Rich Jesse <rjoralist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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:
