Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

<comments interspersed below>

Serge Rielau wrote:

> >But you should also look at this from the standpoint of your personal
> >vested interest. Work with Oracle, have it on your resume, and your
> >income will be substantially higher than if you do the exact same work
> >with SQL Server. This is not trivail.
 

> >And you might remind management that the cost of software is a very
> >insignificant percentage of the cost of any system. If they want to save
> >money they should turn their attention to the even larger dollars
> >flowing out under the door with every wasted hour.
> Like DBA's who get paid more for the exact same work? (Sorry I couldn't
> resist ;-)

That's ok. Actually SQL Server has virtually no need of DBAs. And certainly no need of the skills brought to the table by an Oracle DBA. The lack of configurability makes the job on SQL Server primary one of being a Super-Developer rather than having any real control of the environment.

> I do agree that buying 32 SQL Servers and linking them together as suggested
> in MS TPC-C results is neither a solution for scalability, nor to reduce
> maintenance costs.
> One has to admit though that there are many (most?) applications out there
> that do not require 24/7 and multi terrabytes. And when it comes to serving
> your small company's website with an evening school trained DBA high end
> systems can be seen as overkill.

As long as you say "small company" you may well be correct. Though any change more critical than changing the wall paper will require a reboot.

The rest of us working for mid-size to large corporations choke at the thought of not being up 7x24.

Daniel A. Morgan Received on Thu Jun 14 2001 - 12:47:05 CDT