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: Oracle8i vs. SQL Server 2000

Re: Oracle8i vs. SQL Server 2000

From: Neil Pike <100577.553_at_compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:25:19 +0100
Message-ID: <VA.00000e28.0c891c65@compuserve.com>

 Rick,  

 Please cite specific examples if you can, or tell us who has given you this information. Everything you have written is completely wrong.

> Also there were major concerns over the last release's ability to support > 50 concurrent
 users.
> This to my knowledge has not been addressed.

 Que? I (and most SQL Server customers) have been running *many* more users than this on 1.1, 4.x, 6.x, 7.0 and 2000. Exactly who had these major concerns?  

> Also you will want to consider that SQLServer has NEVER been 7 X 24 unless you forgo good >
backups.

 Untrue. SQL Server has always been able to be backed up whilst running (and these backups restore just fine). The performance of SQL Server was degraded quite a bit when doing this with v6.5 and below, but the degradation is minimal with 7.0 and 2000. (It's impossible to backup a database without affecting performance).  

> You cannot now nor have you been able to run a recoverable backup on this product
> without running DBCC in single user mode. This is a carryover from when
> Microsoft purchased SQLServer from Sybase.

 Again, not true and never has been. DBCC's have no effect on backups or recovery. What is true is that with earlier versions of SQL Server you could not 100% trust the results of a DBCC if the database was experiencing updates whilst you were dbcc'ing it. i.e. it was possible for a corruption to be reported that wasn't really there - if you then wanted to determine 100% that there was a corruption you would put the server in single-user mode and re-run it.  

 (But this has nothing whatsoever to do with backup or recovery)   

> For your sake make them aware of what this option limits the company to. If
> I were you I would refuse to support it and look for another job. If you are
> an Oracle DBA that should not be a problem.

 Maybe you should find out more about a product before slagging it off. Note I've said nothing bad about Oracle - it is a good product, as are most of the other major dbms's. They'll all do a good job.

 Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd  Reply here - no email
 SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
 forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps (faqrtf.zip - L7 - SQL Public)  or http://www.ntfaq.com/Section.cfm?sectionID=34  or www.sqlserverfaq.com
 or www.mssqlserver.com/faq Received on Sun Aug 20 2000 - 01:25:19 CDT

Original text of this message

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