SQL Server vs Oracle Replication

We are about to close our low-level design phase for a medium scale enterprise system. We have intended to use Oracle8 hosted on an RS6000 running AIX. We will be importing (& refreshing) data from a back-end mainframe hierarchical database (Cincom Supra) via ascii/ebcdic files (of course there will also be the application-generated data). The database is expected to be approximately 7-10Gb in size. This RS6000 server will then support approximately 200 concurrent users, and bi-directional replication to&from about 150 laptops (via dial-up and sometimes lan connections).

We just completed a similar system using SQL Anywhere running on NT with great success. However, this client has (until recently) preferred that we use Oracle (we found Oracle a bit difficult to use at first, but we're getting more comfortable). The client has recently presented us with the option of running NT on the RS6000 and using MS SQL Server (7) in place of Oracle.

Since our application will be Microsoft based (VC++,VB, ActiveX...) we find the prospect of using SQL Server attractive (as developers). The project managers find the licensing and seat-costs to heavily favor MS-SS/NT. However, we are concerned about the bi-directional replication capabilities of SQL Server since it is a new feature (correct?). We don't know if the publication/subscription capabilities are equivalent (support dynamic subscriptions?), or exactly what we will be gaining/losing either way really. We also don't want to give up any performance (at least not much). We do assume that development time will benefit from using MS-SS7 vs Oracle8 (agree?).

If you have any opinions, please tell me how you feel. Should we stick with Oracle8, switch to MS-SS7, or even push the client to go with Sybase SQL Anywhere?

If it isn't too much trouble, please also email me at (so sorry for the anti-spam measures):
wesselATwinternetDOTcom

Thanks for any information you can share,

Chuck Wessel Received on Tue Mar 03 1998 - 00:00:00 CST