Re: Oracle VS SQL Server - Which is best to back end ?

and it is reported that Microsoft runs it's backend systems on Oracle and Sun...hmmm...why would Micrsoft do that???

"A B" <A_at_b.com> wrote in message news:u8V1sxbKAHA.436_at_cpmsnbbsa07...
> As someone who's worked at BOTH Oracle and Microsoft on databases for over
> four years in each company, I must say that this response regarding
> SQL-Server and Windows NT is laughable.
>
> If you don't believe that NT is scalable and reliable and a suitable
> database platform, then why do ORACLE sell more on NT than any other
> platform?
>
> Why do all these .COM companies
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/P58874.htm run SQL-Server on NT?
 I
> can also point you to (and have visited) major banks running critical
> real-time trading apps on SQL-Server, plus Power Stations, Country and
 City
> Elections (eg. the election for London Major most recently), plus quite a
> few hospital systems running care systems off Microsoft SQL-Server. You
> can't get much more critical when lives are at stake.
>
> As for security, check-out this:
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-00-001.html The
 NSA
> just approved SQL-2000 C2 certification.Whilst you're there, take a look
 at
> the other vendors that have this stamp at
> http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/epl/entries/TTAP-CSC-EPL-00-001.html ...
> Where's Oracle8? (you've got 3 months to go before Oracle7's
 de-supported).
>
> Reliability : if you look at the facts - Gartner did a very good
 assessment
> on reliability recently - you'll see that only 20% of downtime is due to
 O/S
> failures. Together with driver verification, system file protection and a
> whole host of other things in Win2K, people are running five 9's today. In
> fact, I've met customers who've been running on 3 nine's -- remember
 that's
> only EIGHT hours of downtime per year -- on NT4 quite happily. Most of
 this
> reliability comes down to people and process more than the software... and
> Win2K DataCentre Server covers these challenges off with things like the
> Microsoft Operations Framework, and 24x7xSingle-ownership of the problem
> between Microsoft and 3rd party vendor.
>
> The other thing to remember is that Stratus, who do a large portion of the
> mission critical systems at airports are also selling old and new
 customers
> alike a truly fault-tolerant system for running SQL-Server and NT (they
 keep
> the CPU's in lockstep), you might want to check them out at
> http://www.stratus.com/
>
> Sounds like the company who are contracted to do IT support either don't
> have the skills in SQL-Server, are handsomely charging a fortune for
 keeping
> Oracle up and running, or are need of some convincing. For all these
> occurrences, I'd encourage you to give MS a call - I'm sure they'd love to
> assist in helping out -- e.g.. proving it can, has and will do the job
 over
> Oracle at much lower initial and lower total cost.
>
> The number's 0870 6010100 in England.
>
> Best Regards.
>
> >
> > Second, SQL*Server does not provide the same level of security and
 recovery
> > as Oracle.
> >
> > Third, scalability, compatibility, and expandability are much better
 with
> > Oracle.
> >
> > Perhaps you should listen to the rationale of the company retained to
> > support the systems. They may have lived through some experiences which
> > lead them to the position they hold. I agree with them!
> >
> > Alex Stevens <alex_at_matrixinfotech.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:RO3t5.6084$pi.30098_at_NewsReader...
> > > I guess that this has probably been discussed before, but not in my
 lifetime
> > > on this group, so I'd appreciate any views that the group have as VB
> > > Developers.
> > >
> > > I've been asked to make a comparison between Oracle / SQLS for a
> > > specification we're writing for a system which is too great for
 Access,
> > > (poor network infrastructure on site). So the solution is for a
> > > client/server system.
> > >
> > > Point to note: The volumes of data will be too great for Access, but
> > > probably at the lower end of the scale for a true client/server back
 end
> > > database.
> > >
> > > The company contracted to support IT at the firm, will only support
 Oracle
> > > back-ends, and will not hear of SQL Server being installed. The main
 client
> > > however will listen to any argument for the use SQLS with VB.
> > >
> > > I would prefer to use SQL Server, as I always feel more at home with
> > > Microsoft products (Technet support, big on-line communities), by my
> > > knowledge of any comparison with Oracle is nil.
> > >
> > > I would appreciate any of your views regarding this dilemma.
> > >
> > > Many Thanks
> > >
> > > Alex Stevens, England
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 29 2000 - 15:04:19 CEST