Re: Which SQL is the best for servers?
From: Geoff Muldoon <geoff.muldoon_at_trap.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:29:23 +1100
Message-ID: <MPG.2404afeb4fe4f0bf98971a_at_news.x-privat.org>
In article <gncr90$61p$1_at_news.motzarella.org>, Jerry Stuckle says...
> Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> > Jerry Stuckle says...
> >> pg wrote:
> >
> >>> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant
> >
> >> You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others.
> >
> > Scrap MSSQL Server as a candidate given the above O/S requirement.
> >
> > Geoff M
> >
> > Running 3 RHEL4 boxes in an Oracle RAC cluster, with web interfaces
> > (RHEL5/Apache/php) on separate VMWare ESX gear.
>
> The OS should be picked based on the requirements of the database and
> rest of the system, not vice versa.
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:29:23 +1100
Message-ID: <MPG.2404afeb4fe4f0bf98971a_at_news.x-privat.org>
In article <gncr90$61p$1_at_news.motzarella.org>, Jerry Stuckle says...
> Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> > Jerry Stuckle says...
> >> pg wrote:
> >
> >>> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant
> >
> >> You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others.
> >
> > Scrap MSSQL Server as a candidate given the above O/S requirement.
> >
> > Geoff M
> >
> > Running 3 RHEL4 boxes in an Oracle RAC cluster, with web interfaces
> > (RHEL5/Apache/php) on separate VMWare ESX gear.
>
> The OS should be picked based on the requirements of the database and
> rest of the system, not vice versa.
In an ideal world, yes.
> I'm not saying I'm recommending SQL Server (or any other RDBMS for that
> matter). But determining the hardware and OS before the rest of the
> requirements are determined places artificial limits on the rest of the
> system.
My comments were simply based on the OPs restriction on O/S. There may be valid non-ideal-world reasons for that restriction.
Geoff M Received on Mon Feb 16 2009 - 18:29:23 CST