Re: SQL Server/Oracle performance metrics
From: <ranjithreddy.batc_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8d71f1b8-a675-45d4-a292-c4ec5b549c66_at_googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> After reading many postings regarding SQL Server vs Oracle, most of
> which seem to degenerate into diatribes, I am still looking for some
> hard numbers or experienced opinions from reliable sources. I am
> trying to select a database architecture that will meet a client's
> needs at the best price. Most of the postings in these groups are
> strongly in favor of one solution over the other, for what seems
> "religous" reasons. Well, I'm an agnostic and I'm trying to solve my
> client's business problem. Assume the following:
>
> * A multi-processor server (running NT, at least 512MB RAM) for the
> database
> * Another server running the web/application server
> * Potential traffic spikes of up to 1 million web site visitors over
> about 10 hours
> * MS Site Server is expected as part of the architecture, so
> integration is an issue
>
> My questions:
> 1. Can SQL Server handle this load reasonably well?
> 2. At what point (#users, #transactions/minute, etc.) is Oracle
> required?
>
> Microsoft of course says SQL Server can handle anything, and the
> Transaction Processing Council (TPC) has some pretty good numbers to
> back up SQL Server's price/performance. My gut feel based on the
> research I have done so far is that SQL Server and Oracle **on the NT
> platform** are not that far apart, so the cost/integration benefits
> would lean towards SQL Server. If the load on the database reaches a
> certain point (and I don't really know what that is) the logical choice
> would be a UNIX solution.
>
> Any constructive feedback would be appreciated.
>
> - Gavin
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Received on Thu Jul 26 2012 - 16:33:48 CDT
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:33:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8d71f1b8-a675-45d4-a292-c4ec5b549c66_at_googlegroups.com>
On Tuesday, January 18, 2000 1:30:00 PM UTC+5:30, (unknown) wrote:
> After reading many postings regarding SQL Server vs Oracle, most of
> which seem to degenerate into diatribes, I am still looking for some
> hard numbers or experienced opinions from reliable sources. I am
> trying to select a database architecture that will meet a client's
> needs at the best price. Most of the postings in these groups are
> strongly in favor of one solution over the other, for what seems
> "religous" reasons. Well, I'm an agnostic and I'm trying to solve my
> client's business problem. Assume the following:
>
> * A multi-processor server (running NT, at least 512MB RAM) for the
> database
> * Another server running the web/application server
> * Potential traffic spikes of up to 1 million web site visitors over
> about 10 hours
> * MS Site Server is expected as part of the architecture, so
> integration is an issue
>
> My questions:
> 1. Can SQL Server handle this load reasonably well?
> 2. At what point (#users, #transactions/minute, etc.) is Oracle
> required?
>
> Microsoft of course says SQL Server can handle anything, and the
> Transaction Processing Council (TPC) has some pretty good numbers to
> back up SQL Server's price/performance. My gut feel based on the
> research I have done so far is that SQL Server and Oracle **on the NT
> platform** are not that far apart, so the cost/integration benefits
> would lean towards SQL Server. If the load on the database reaches a
> certain point (and I don't really know what that is) the logical choice
> would be a UNIX solution.
>
> Any constructive feedback would be appreciated.
>
> - Gavin
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Received on Thu Jul 26 2012 - 16:33:48 CDT