Re: SQL Server for Oracle DBAs

From: Tony Rogerson <>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 19:17:34 +0100
Message-ID: <g1ms45$16l$1$>

> From my experience you are correct. Much of what we see in SQL Server
> shops is one large (500GB, 750GB) SATA drive. You won't find the likes
> of EMC, Hitachi, NetApp, and Pillar putting their efforts into more
> than a small number of the largest SQL Server shops: There's a reason.

RFLOL - man oh man - soo soooo sooooo out of touch and the sort of comment I'd expect from somebody who is anti anything MS especially SQL Server.

The reality is somewhat different to that little pocket of air in the sand where you have your head buried.

Most SQL Server installs are using SCSI or SAS; SATA is widely avoided for database files because of the on die cache and the risk that has if there is an unexpected power outage that the UPS doesn't handle. Yes; SATA is used for back ups - that's fine; it has a high sustained MBytes per second throughput; unfortunetly it still can't handle the level of async IO's that SAS can which is one of the reasons why SAS is over taking SCSI.

Yes, there are a large number of ISP and entry small level folk who are using SATA but that's because their ISP have ill informed them or that they want to keep costs as low as possible to see if their business model will suceed - I doubt you'd understand that concent "keeping costs low" because you are an oracle guy and oracle costs a fortune.

As to your remark about EMC etc... they are all MS partners and their equipment is in wide spread use at the middle to enterprise level with SQL Server installs.

Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
[Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
[UK SQL User Community] 
Received on Thu May 29 2008 - 13:17:34 CDT

Original text of this message