Re: SQL Server for Oracle DBAs
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 09:36:50 +0100
> SqlServer 2000 was released in July 2000 - how is it possible that Slammer
> was 8-9 years ago?
SQL Server 2000 was released in Sept 2000 - 8 to 9 years ago; which is my point - it's technology 8 - 9 years old; Slammer was Jan 2003 - over 5 years ago. Because of slammer MS changed their approach to developing SQL Server which is one of the big reasons SQL Server 2005 was late. Code review after code review....
> "SqlServer 2005 made it out the door in Nov of 2005, with SP2 being
> released in Feb 2007, and updated in Mar 2007"
My point is that on 2005 there have been NO security vunerabilities caused by the product software "SQL Server 2005".
> Now - IF M$ 'got it right' as you said, why did they have to pull back SP2
> and update it? And do you really think a bit over two years is a
> sufficient product life cycle? As indicated above, SqlServer 2005 was
> released in Nov 2005. SqlServer 2008 came out in Feb 2008 making the life
> cycle for MSS 2005 a mere 2.25 years, and it's required a couple of
> service packs along the way too! And... contrary to your assertion, MSS
> 2000 is still a supported version by M$.
SQL Server 2008 hasn't released yet - it's still in it's beta cycle and I doubt it will release to the final quarter of this year - when it's ready they'll release it rather than going by some fixed date....
Extended support for SQL Server 2000 ended April 2008, the only way to get support for SQL Server 2000 is if you purchased additional extended support which the majority haven't.
> Admittedly, as with ANY software, Oracle has patched its versions on a
> regular basis. That doesn't make them worse than M$ though, and by far
> security is easier to manage in Oracle than it is in MSS - well, at least
> if you're a competent DBA it is.
My problem was this "Oracle is UNBREAKABLE" campaign - what a lot of tosh.
Don't you have to buy your security with Oracle - doesn't it come as a seperate component and you only get "basic" security with the base version?
> Jumping into an Oracle group as a SqlServer advocate and intentionally
> baiting people doesn't speak too highly of your character. Morgan and
> Sybrand are mainstays of this group who provide useful, relevant info in
> our community. What are you contributing here?
Look at the post "SQL Server for Oracle DBA's"; I posted why the OP should be wary and not try and apply ORacle theory against a SQL Server install and we are now here.
Yes- Morgan and Sybrand definetly have a label in the group - absolutely.
> OBTW, explain why - if you convert a SqlServer database to Oracle the
> storage requirements are reduced to about one-third? Guess there must be
> some substantial differences in how data is managed, huh?
Guess so - which is why I said "don't apply oracle theory against SQL Server". Now - you answer me a question; why did I get flamed when I simply wrote the following in answer to the OP's question?
"Whatever you do, don't try and apply Oracle theory and practices against a SQL Server install - the two products are very very different and have very different strategies for dealing with performance and scalability; take one - I believe in ORacle the recommend practice is to create one RAID 10 array and plonk the data on that; in SQL Server we don't do it that way - we put the logs on their own mirrored pair; we put the data on it's own RAID 10 array etc..."
-- Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson [Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant] http://sqlserverfaq.com [UK SQL User Community]Received on Sun Jun 01 2008 - 03:36:50 CDT