Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: ms-sql vs oracle on NT or UNIX?

Re: ms-sql vs oracle on NT or UNIX?

From: Billy Verreynne <vslabs_at_onwe.co.za>
Date: 1998/02/18
Message-ID: <6cdu94$ngv$1@hermes.is.co.za>#1/1

Joel Garry wrote in message <6cd1h0$m8b$1_at_pebble.ml.org>...

>So you're saying that the reason NT servers have to be rebooted is because
 they
>are improperly configured? If so, I would have to say it is more difficult
>to configure them then many will admit.

I have run NT servers for many months without having to reboot a single one, or having one crash. OTOH, I've seen NT fall over every few hours because of buggy drivers or incompatible hardware. Funny thing is, I've seen this with Unix too.

>If not, NT is crap. All the other
>points can be easily (or not) worked around, but an OS that can't stay up
>for an arbitrary amount of time is really bad.

I'm not sure where this rumour comes from that NT is so unstable that it crashes frequently. I can show you sites where NT forms an important part of the server backbone and where there have not been a single operating systems crash for over a year.

>>OTOH, I would not like to touch a 50+ GB database on NT either.
>
>Now, why is that?

As I said in my previous posting, I do not believe (personal opinion only) that Microsoft Backoffice (i.e. NT with SQL-Server) can effectively handle databases that size. SQL-Server (unlike Oracle) still performs page locking. Large indexes are problematic. And more than once I've seen database corruption occurring in SQL-Server that requires a DBBC run. I hane never experienced this with Oracle. With regards to NT - standard vanilla flavour NT only supports up to 4 CPUs. I don't believe that is scalable enough. You do get OEM versions of NT that supports more processors - how well that works and how well NT scale I don't know. So instead of trying the unknown (running NT on 16+ CPUs), I will rather stick to something I do know - SMP or MPP RISC with Unix.

So that is why I believe that NT is ideally suited for the lower scale server market (cheaper, easy to install and maintain) and Unix for the higher scale server market (more scaleble, mature etc.).

What I fail to understand why NT is always made out be crap and then they fall on their knees in front of Unix beating their chests and crying that they are not worthy. :-)

>>The fact is that both operating systems are being used, and used very
>>successfully, in many corporate environments for a variety of things.
 Simply
>>knocking one because of a personal dislike is naive in my point of view.
>
>If it were that simple, I would have to agree. There just comes a point
>where you don't want to be a punching bag anymore. One can be a little
 more
>lenient for an app than an OS... It's not as if the people who are
 knocking
>it are not familiar with it. Is it any less naive to buy MS stuff because
>everyone else is? Isn't that a silly reason for an overwhelming majority
 of
>new apps to be MS-centric?

Don't understand what you are trying to say. I agree that NT is less mature than Unix. Microsoft is still struggling (ignoring?) with security problems which is old hat in the Unix environment. But NT *is* a stable operating system with acceptable performance. Believe me, if NT was that unstable or crap, IS/IT managers would not buy an operating system they know is going to cause them and their dept/division endless problems.

Another factor is development. I love C under Unix, but I can put the same type of application together with more functionality and in less time using development tools like Delphi on NT. NT is most developers operating system of choice, simply because it is easier for non-operating system experts to setup and run, a wealth of development related information is available, there are excellent development tools, and most of all, there is a *huge* and *growing* application market for NT software.

Ditto for the front-end to databases like SQL-Server and Oracle. We have to live with the bastard of all operating systems (Win95) as the standard client. Once again there is a huge market for software on Win95. Look at Oracle - Developer/2000, Designer/2000, Enterprise Manager etc are now all geared towards the Windows operating systems.

As developers, we have no choice but to develop software the market wants. And the majority wants Windows (or MS-centric as you puy it) software. What other choice do we have? I can't live on love and Unix alone... ;-)

So repeat after me : "I have sold my soul to Windows". :-)

regards,
Billy

> These opinions are my own and not necessarily those of Information Quest
These are my own opinions and have nothing to do with the voices in my head or alien implant. Received on Wed Feb 18 1998 - 00:00:00 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US