Re: Pro's & Con's on Oracle & SQL Svr?

What is very interesting about the ads (or at least one that I have seen) is that people (in the ad) are amazed that no one has had to do anything to the server for 3 days and the server doesn't care.

I should hope not. It better run for a heck of a lot longer than 3 days.

I had a local client that moved their data center across town. They were running mainly on UNIX (the brand isn't important) boxes and had Oracle and a ton of other things on them. Their major problem was that these systems had been up so long (many years) without a problem that when they took the machines down they had a problem starting all the programs. The problem was that over the years people had added more and more processes and some had never been added to the startup script. It took them awhile to figure out all the programs they needed to kick off, but everything worked out just fine.
Jim

"Mark Townsend" <markbtownsend_at_home.com> wrote in message news:B6E93D84.5635%markbtownsend_at_home.com...
> I'd be surprised if the combined c.d.o and c.d.m-s communities would agree
> that Oracle AND MS-SQLServer 'both are enterprise level databases' - I
 guess
> it's all part of what your definition of an enterprise is.
>
> I have yet to come across a single site yet that is running SS in the
 'glass
> house' for business critical applications - and as a proof point I'd offer
> the amount of money MS is spending at the moment trying to persuade
> everybody that they are. Stands to reason that if SQL Server was being
> widely used in this manner, MS wouldn't be needing to resort to TV adds
> saying it was. Simply adding enterprise to your marketing tag line does
 not
> make you enterprise ready.
>
> Anyhow, in oder to subvert this thread even further - anybody know any
 good
> Oracle or Microsoft jokes ? I have a few that I'll gladly share if
 somebody
> wants to contribute first.
>
> in article 9a0r8d$ac1_at_freepress.concentric.net, wayne at
 no_at_email.please.com
> wrote on 3/29/01 6:32 PM:
>
> >> Look at the fine print of the offer. There's a number of very
 debateable
> >> issues, not the least of which is that Oracle can impose conditions
> >> (hardware and consulting services) that the challenger must completely
 bear
> >> the cost of, and that can easily exceed a million dollars ... but the
 one
> >> that is most interesting is: even if Oracle loses the challenge, and
 has
 to
> >> pay a million dollars, the customer can not publicize the fact.
> >
> > Well I have not read it at all, I confess. It's always sounded to me
 like a
> > very bold challenge.
> >
> >> To my ears, sure doesn't sound like Oracle has a lot of confidence in
 its
> >> own product. Instead it sounds like Oracle Marketing is very adept at
> >> creating impressive but hollow challenges.
> >
> > Agree and disagree... I agree because of all the conditions you say
 Oracle
> > puts on the tests; but I disaagreee becaus eof these reasons: Oracle
 uses
> > only Oracle within its corporate systems; I work with Oracle every day
 and
> > know first hand how good it is; and the comparison states three times
> > faster, not simply "faster". I think if Oracle tunes the DB and the
 results
> > are a DB that is thrice as fast, then it's still a good deal.
> >
> >> Bottom line, as I stated originally: both Oracle and SQL Server are
> >> excellent products, and both are enterprise level databases.
 Preferences
 for
> >> one or the other, tend to boil down to familiarity with one or the
 other.
> >
> > Yes, of course. It would be very hard to be an absolute master at both,
> > unless they were both very simple (ie: MS Access vs dBase).
> >
> > Overall I think we agree, though!
> >
> >
>
Received on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 23:38:42 CST