Re: SQL Server, Oracle or Informix

On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:18:04 GMT, "Patrick Dean Rusk" <ruskies_at_mediaone.net> wrote:

> This is probably going to get me in trouble on this list, but here I
>go...

Oh boy, another bloody "genius"...

>
> I have witnessed and formerly been a part of huge amounts of
>anti-Microsoft bigotry from those on the "open" (and OO) technologies side,
>but, having been to the "dark" side, I can confidently say that most if it
>is highly unfounded and blind. These comp.databases.oracle.* mailing lists
>are rife with pithy statements about alleged instability of Windows NT or
>SQL Server that just aren't true, or, at least, are no longer true,
>particularly with Windows 2000 and SQL Server 2000.

So, Windows NT and SQL Server were not unstable and it was all bigotry and mis-information? Of course, because Windows 2000 and SS2K are now stable (determined by you, BTW)? Makes sense...

> The history of these two platforms can briefly be summarized as follows.
>Microsoft has always primarily emphasized ease of use, programmer and DBA
>productivity, developer support, and affordability, all "out of the box".

Really? I seem to remember very expensive development and re-training changes every six months or just about everytime M$ decided to "change the paradigm". I've lost count of the number of acronyms invented by M$ over the last 5 years to justify their total lack of direction and knowledge about what the real IT world is all about.

There is a difference between a desktop computer and a corporate server, but M$ and its followers have never understood this basic principle.

>The *nix/Oracle side has primiarily emphasized scalability, stability,
>scriptability (i.e., everything must be able to be done from a command
>line), and raw performance. As a result, each side seriously lagged the
>other in the other's areas of strength.

I'd stay with stability, scalability and scriptability anytime over "end-users doing the work" like M$ proposes...

>
> In the last few years though, since about the releases NT SP4, Visual
>Studio 6, and SQL Server 7 , Microsoft has gained *serious* ground in
>scalability, stability, and performance.

No it hasn't. It's being promoted as such, but that doesn't make it so.

>
> The *nix/J2EE/Oracle world, however, is still way behind in ease of use,
>programmer and DBA productivity, and affordability. And though there are
>many resources on the Internet for *nix/J2EE/Oracle programmers, there is
>nothing as clean, comprehensive, and accessible as the MSDN program.
>

That's a good one. Where have you been looking? Oh yeah, MSDN...

>
>1) If you cannot use Windows 2000 as your database server operating system,
>choose Oracle.

Oh! Oracle is an OS now? And Win2K is a database server? Of course, silly me: yet another "redefinition" of the world by M$.

>There's lots of support out there for SQL Server.

There is even more support out there for Unix and ORACLE. You just have to open your eyes.

> Here's why SQL Server should be the default choice in all other
>situations:
>
>1) It is *hugely* less expensive than Oracle. Oracle is generally at least
>$20K per CPU, and often closer to $30K per CPU, just for the basic database.

Bummer. I must be rich then, because I have ORACLE. Hmm, doesn't glue, particularly since it's not that price.

>They try to get major money out of you for most options on top of that. SQL
>Server 7, on the other hand, has until recently been available for $8000 per
>server (not CPU; you can load as many CPUs as you want on the server), with
>unlimited connections originating from the Web. I believe SQL Server 2000's
>pricing has moved towards a per-CPU pricing structure, but it's probably
>still much less expensive than Oracle.

*Probably*? Why not check instead of using old numbers?

>
>
> Oracle is a DBA Consultant's dream database. It's got the market share
>and conventional wisdom reputation on its side to get companies to keep
>buying it, yet it requires DBA's with deep experience with it to make it
>work well. Such DBA's often become independent consultants, because there's
>big money to be made doing so.
>

Funny. And the multiple M$ certifications (once for every release, don't forget!) are not designed to produce "expert" consultants in their products? And those will work for free?

Well ,no one in their right mind would pay anything for a M$-certified expert anyway:

<client: I have a performance problem with SS and NT> <M$ "expert": not a problem, just add more memory!> sigh...

>3) SQL Server is very easy for each developer to install on his/her own
>machine without hogging resources, generally increasing their productivity
>if they work close to the database layer at all.

Of course, all developers now run NT server and their own copy of SQL Server! What was that you mentioned about *cost*?

>5) SQL Server 2000 has automatic, dynamic optimization that is probably
>worth a serious look.

Which means like NT it spends a sizeable portion of the CPU and disk resources trying to figure out how to adapt to the last client that pushed the Enter key....

Common problem with "dynamic" optimizations: they don't work in stable production systems. The system spends most of its resources trying to optimize what doesn't *need* to be optimized. And when it doesn't, its too slow to respond. Nothing that "adding more memory" won't cure, anyway...

>
> So, to sum up all of the above for your situation, I think it comes down
>to this: Only if the spatial data capabilities of Oracle are perfectly
>suited to your GIS needs and only if they have no adequate counterpart in
>SQL Server world (and I would check with a Microsoft sales rep and some SQL
>Server newsgroups before concluding this), get Oracle. Otherwise, for a 13G
>database, which is smallish these days, that is not prohibited from running
>on Windows 2000, definitely choose Windows 2000 Server (or Advanced Server,
>if you're going to setup a failover cluster) and SQL Server 2000.

Hmm, funny that. I'd go exactly the other way around, having used both sides of the camp like you, except for a *lot* longer...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto_at_bigpond.net.au.nospam
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/the_Den/index.html Received on Wed Jan 31 2001 - 07:11:56 CST