Re: Databases in a server box

I have to admit that I don't know near as much about SQL server as I should, as I have 3 relatively small SQL server databases to look after as well as the 8 or so Oracle databases. As soon as my 8i certification is out of the way I will be taking some courses however.

Having said that I'd have to agree with Howards interpretation of how they compare with Oracle databases. I have to SQL "servers" running 3 separate databases. One of the servers runs two totally separate applications, and they can be backed up independantly from each other, in Oracle this would be done by just (online)backing up a schema's tablespaces separate from the other schemas.

I do have 2 different app's running on Oracle databases on the same machine, but they are on 2 instances, not 2 different schemas in the same database. I have thought about running both app's on the same database, but when doing things like a cold backup both databases would have to be brought down, hot backups would be unaffected. I was going to say also that the app's are seldom both compatible for the latest Oracle release at the same time, so often I am running several versions, for example right now I have 7.2.3, 7.3.3, 8.1.5, 8.1.7.0 and 8.1.7.3. In this case you have to have each "database" on its own instance, and since we are running mostly on NT/2000, that means on it's own machine as well.

still confused? ;-)

"Howard J. Rogers" <dba_at_hjrdba.com> wrote in message news:aasflv$hmr$1_at_lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Usually, there is just one SQL Server *server* on a box, no? Within which
> there are many databases.
>
> Well, Oracle is just the same. Usually, there is just one Instance on a
box,
> managing one database. Within that database, there are many tablespaces,
and
> many schemas.
>
> As Sean M points out, though, you can have many instances/databases on the
> one box. Within each of which will be many tablespaces and schemas.
>
> The point is, an Oracle database is more like the SQL Server server
itself.
> It's not the same thing as a SQL Server database at all.
>
> Actually, just yesterday, I was watching a video called 'SQL Server 2000
for
> the Oracle Customer' in which the presenter sneakily made just this
> confusion to get his (marketing) point across: "Look how complicated it is
> to create an Oracle database", he said. "See how many files there are, and
> how big they are!! Now look at how quickly I can create a SQL Server
> database (click click)... and how small they are!!" (he'd created a SQL
> Server database of 1M!!!). I was practically yelling at the video: compare
> apples with apples! Had he created a 1M tablespace in Oracle, that would
> have been a fair comparison. Had he gone to the C:\Program Files\MSSQL
> directory and shown how many files there were there, and how big they
were,
> that would have been a fair comparison. But as he was trying to sell SQL
> Server, he compared one component of Oracle with a completely different
> component of SQL Server... which unfortunately happen to share the same
name
> 'database'.
>
> Regards
> HJR
>
>
> "NoName" <PlayMan_at_Somewhere.com> wrote in message
> news:VCcA8.1425$ce4.128371_at_newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am MS SQL DBA in a large company. In SQL servers, we have 20-50
> databases
> > in each box, but in Oracle servers, only one database in each Unix box,
> even
> > for very small databases (a hundred MB). Is that supposed to be? Can't
or
> > Shouldn't Oracle server host more databases? Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Fri May 03 2002 - 09:47:40 CDT