Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

RE: Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

From: Allen, Brandon <>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:22:50 -0700
Message-ID: <04DDF147ED3A0D42B48A48A18D574C4503D3FB38@NT15.oneneck.corp>

Hi John,  

Good article. I just found one statement that appears a bit misleading to me:  

"SS2K however, does have the concept of multiple "databases" within an instance. These "databases" are simply a set of file structures named MASTER, MODEL, MSDB and TEMPDB at the minimum. "  

This seems to indicate that each database has its own set of master, model, msdb and tempdb files and that you can have multiple master, model, msdb and tempdb databases in a single instance, but that is not the case. Yes, you can have multiple user databases in a single instance, but you can only have one of each of these "system" databases.  


-----Original Message-----
From: []On Behalf Of John Kanagaraj Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:53 AM
To:; Oracle-L Freelists Subject: RE: Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

Have a look at this one by your truly - This appeared on IOUG's SELECT as well btw. As a result, I had some notes from M$ employees, and I had to explain *again* what read consistency, locking, need for seperating redo and undo and all the good stuff that Oracle has and M$ grasps for! [Apparently SS 2005 is supposed to have overcome some of these problems - the literature is unclear still or I haven't understood it well]  

Ok - I drifted a little over to the dark side for a bit, but I am firmly back on the Oracle side of things now =8->) Bouquets/brickbats/comments about this article welcome.  

John Kanagaraj <><
DB Soft Inc
Phone: 408-970-7002 (W)  

Fear connects you to the Negative, but Faith connects you to the Positive! I Jn 4:18  

From: [] On Behalf Of Jared Still Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:02 AM To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: Microsoft MS SQL article for Oracle Professionals

The following article appeared in the DBA Village newsletter.

Anyone else see it?

There's no way to comment directly on the article there, so I'm taking a whack at it here.

I took a look at one paragraph, the one under the heading 'Striping Data'.

> Oracle-type segments are not needed for most Microsoft SQL Server installations.

What, SQL Server doesn't use tables or indexes?

> Instead, SQL Server can distribute, or stripe, data more efficiently with hardware-based RAID ...

Still doesn't have much to do with a segment.

> The recommended RAID configuration for SQL Server is RAID 1 (mirroring) or RAID 5
> (stripe sets with an extra parity drive, for redundancy).
> RAID 10 (mirroring of striped sets with parity) is also recommended, but is much more
> expensive than the first two options.


Should I buy 10 disks for that 5x2 RAID10 volume?

Or should I just buy 10 disks and settle for 5 RAID1 volumes?

>If RAID is not an option, filegroups are an attractive alternative and
> provide some of the same benefits available with RAID. Additionally,
> for very large databases that might span multiple physical RAID arrays,
> filegroups may be an attractive way to further distribute your I/O
> across RAID arrays in a controlled fashion.

Sounds a bit like a tablespace.
Which is what the article was attempting to SQL Server didn't need in the earlier comments about segments.

'nuff fun for one evening.

Jared Still
Certifiable Oracle DBA and Part Time Perl Evangelist

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

Received on Tue Oct 18 2005 - 12:23:47 CDT

Original text of this message