Re: Does anyone have serious databases on NT?

No - serious as in the sense of

:>> > 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,

which was the original question

Alex

Norris wrote in message <7o6soj$kto$2_at_imsp009a.netvigator.com>...
>'serious' in what sense? in the sense of effort to develop and maintain?
>
>In comp.databases.sybase Alex Hudghton <alex_at_alenda.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>: 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
>:>> >
>:>> >
>:>
>
>
>
>--
>===================================
>http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/
Received on Tue Aug 03 1999 - 09:39:23 CDT