Re: Does anyone have serious databases on NT?

But does Microsoft even have plans to port NT to the Merced chip?

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Chris Weiss wrote:

> A recent poll on the Team DBA web site showed that over 70% of the
> respondents where using Oracle on NT. However, the overwhelming majority of
> those who said that had not used Oracle on NT claimed they would never do
> so.
>
> I maintain databases on both NT and Unix, and the difference is scale. Big
> databases go on Unix. Small to medium databases go on NT. Unix (Solaris)
> is significantly more stable, but the hardware is more expensive and the
> personnel needed to administer these databases or servers command higher
> salaries. NT is cheaper!!!!!! The Oracle claims concerning a lower cost of
> ownership are misleading because these assume large databases in a
> distributed environment. For the **majority** of databases (< 4GB and < 50
> users), NT is the best choice for both cost and ease of management.
>
> Contrary to what many people say, Oracle on NT is by far the easiest to set
> up, maintain, and monitor. Oracle on NT seems to run best from my experience
> using service pack 5 and service pack 3.
>
> Performance-wise, SQL Server 7.0 is within 10% of Oracle on NT at less than
> 1/5th the cost for software. On a large SMP Xeon box (Compaq for example),
> NT is a pretty serious contender. I believe that NT on the Merced will pose
> a very serious challenge to many Unix installations.
>
> Commercial Unix is overkill for the majority of databases. However, for
> small platforms, Linux is an untested entity, and Linux might shake NT's
> dominance in the small to medium market. Performance numbers vary between
> NT and Linux. However, Linux is free, Linux is easy for Unix administrators
> to learn, and Linux is improving. Since both Oracle and Sybase have stable
> releases, Linux is a contender. Linux also scales to SMP on both Intel and
> Alpha. Dell is producing solid Linux workstations. When Dell starts
> producing high-end 6300's with Linux, Linux will become a serious Oracle
> platform/OS.
>
> For the near future, I couldn't imagine running a large database (>100Gb and
> >100 users) on NT. However, it is often cheaper to break up large databases
> onto small NT boxes, depending on the number of users.
>
> Christopher Weiss
> Professional Services Division
> Compuware Corporation
>
>
>
>
>
> <mkx_at_excite.com> wrote in message
> news:37a18698.4811097_at_news.supernews.com...
> > After reading many, many articles, press releases, and marketing
> > propaganda about the fight for the dominant position on NT, I seem to
> > see something missing: Any direct evidence that anyone is using the
> > major databases on NT (other than Microsoft's SQL Server). Most
> > serious (non-mainframe) projects always seem to go on Unix, AS/400,
> > etc. I understand why this is - many organizations are hesitant to go
> > "Enterprise on NT".
> >
> > All of the statistics I have seen wrap the UNIX/NT market segments
> > together. Thus the "leader in license revenue" may have gotten there
> > on UNIX, without selling that much on NT.
> >
> > I simply am interested in seeing where the major work is being done on
> > NT specifically, and if it is done elsewhere than MS SQL.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jul 30 1999 - 20:54:35 CDT