Re: Does anyone have serious databases on NT?

Sorry to disappoint, but 8Gb is really not 'serious' :-)

Alex

Kieron Gleeson wrote in message ...
>Yes I have an 8 GB Sybase ASE 11.5.1 database running on a Compaq Proliant
5500 4 way
>2GB memory raid array 3200 it's been running on NT since February. We have
rebooted
>the NT Server once, and recycle the Database server only when required
usually for
>configuration changes.
>
>Klinton Lee wrote:
>
>> mkx_at_excite.com writes:
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> I agree with Chris' comments below.
>>
>> I've been 'fortunate' to have to opportunity to maintain a variety of
databases
>> on NT: (Sybase, Oracle, DB2, Informix, MS SQL). The systems are nice for
quick,
>> 'development', but if it's a critical production system, I would stray
away from
>> NT.
>>
>> I know some shops use NT for their production systems on small, simple
databases.
>> All of our production level databases reside on Unix...All of our NT
databases
>> are 'crash and burn', (test databases).
>>
>> Klint
>>
>> 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.
>> >
>>
>> .....
>> .....
>> .....
>> .....
>> .....
>> .....
>>
>> >
>> > Christopher Weiss
>> > Professional Services Division
>> > Compuware Corporation
>> >
>> >
>
Received on Tue Aug 03 1999 - 08:45:26 CDT