Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

In my opinion, Oracle is a superior, more mature database (as Gary England said in his reply). However, I have experienced some small problems integrating Orcale with the Microsoft toolset. So if you are planning on using something like Access or VB for the front end, Sql Server may be the better option.

Dean

In article <604544$s8l_at_bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,   gmanok_at_worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> Our company is currently migrating from Mumps to Oracle databases for
> our online transaction processing systems. We developed our first
> product with Oracle 7.3.2 and all systems run on Solaris version 2.3 to
> 2.5.
>
> We are going to develop a Downtime Monitoring system which shall notify
> engineers of system unavailabilty and allow us to retrieve and record
> system availability parameters and quantify system availibility through
> reports.
>
> Our monitoring system will be client-server based. Each production
> system (7 systems) will write system parameters to shared memory. The
> client(s) will poll each production server every 30 seconds and write
> the data to a database. The production systems are up approximately 16
> hours per day 6 days per week. Each record will be under 1K and we
> would like to keep 3 months of data. The client(s) will be a NT box(es)
> to keep hardware costs lower than those of another Sun box. We own
> licenses for Oracle and SQL-server.
>
> Barring licensing costs, what are the pros and cons of using SQL-Server
> over Oracle and vice versa.
>
> Thanks in advance, Steve gmanok_at_worldnet.att.net

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet