Re: Oracle vs. Microsoft

You might also look into Network Appliance Equipment for the Oracle or MS databases.

Jerry Gitomer wrote:

> Southside Schmitty wrote in message
> <824qf6$g63$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>...
> |I work for a company that is caught in the Microsoft vs. Oracle
> battle.
>
> [big snip]
>
> |We have a development team testing some of these architectures
> and
> |they are having some issues with their prototypes...speed (ODBC)
> and
> |object issues (OLE DB) in the middle layer. With OLE DB they
> were
> |having problems with "seeing" contents of an Oracle package.
> |
> |Because of "issues" they are attempting to push us into using
> SQL
> |Server as a backend because it is too complex and cumbersome to
> do the
> |MS/Oracle thing. And, I don't think that it's a good idea to
> have
> |different database types for mission-critical, type 3
> applications.
> |I'm trying to gather some ammo to support my arguments.
>
> If your development team isn't sharp enough to cope with the
> complexity of communicating with an Oracle database using
> Microsoft front end products what makes anyone think that they
> are sharp enough to design robust database applications using
> anything?
>
> ODBC often tends to be slow in comparison to any of the other
> alternatives, but OLE -- if done properly -- can be quite fast.
> I have been at 4 sites in the last two years that used Microsoft
> front-end tools to talk to Oracle databases. Once they did some
> experimentation and learned what to avoid, e.g., bringing large
> datasets back to the client, they were all able to achieve
> satisfactory performance.
>
> |Is SQL Server robust enough? As robust as Oracle? How does it
> scale?
> |For Oracle, the number of users that an NT box can support is
> miniscule
> |when compared to Oracle on a UNIX box.
>
> Oracle is robust enough to run 24x7 in thousands of
> installations. I do not know if this is true of SQL Server. SQL
> Server doesn't scale as well as Oracle since it is limited to
> Intel chips. Your last statement is true, but it is also true
> that a large bus can carry more passengers than a passenger
> car -- so what.
> |
> |In theory, by putting the middle tier in there, one could argue
> that it
> |doesn't matter to an enterprise what the backend is because you
> are
> |always shielded by the middle tier. What happens when people
> want to
> |do data warehousing? If people are using a homogeneous
> database, do
> |they usually grab data directly out of the database? Or do they
> use
> |the business objects? Or do they crank data into text files and
> run it
> |into the warehouse?
>
> All of the above. It depends on what is the easiest way to grab
> the data without disrupting transaction processing and where the
> data is being pulled from. For example, I just started a new
> assignment where the input to the data warehouse comes from a mix
> of flat files and Oracle RDBMS
>
> |And, lastly (for now), how do things like this affect a data
> center?
> |DBA support, licensing, servers, database utilities like a
> defragger,
> |etc.?
>
> Since SQL Server requires minimal DBA support DBA support
> shouldn't be an issue. If you are using both SQL Server and
> Oracle as compared to only Oracle it stands to reason that your
> license costs for the servers will be greater. If you design
> your Oracle database correctly you do not have to ever defrag it,
> can't speak for SQL Server.
>
> |
> |Thank,
> |Tom Schmitt
> |
> |
> |Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> |Before you buy.
>
> hth
> jerry gitomer

--

Michael Linett - President
Mike@zerowait.com * http://www.zerowait.com PH 302.266.9408 FX 302.738.4302
 http://www.loadbalancing.net - The Source for information on Load Balancing Technology
 http://www.nas-san.com - Information on Network Attached Storage and Storage Area Networks Received on Thu Dec 02 1999 - 06:58:43 CST