'serious' in what sense? in the sense of effort to develop and maintain?
In comp.databases.sybase Alex Hudghton <alex_at_alenda.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
: Sorry to disappoint, but 8Gb is really not 'serious' :-)
: Alex
: Kieron Gleeson wrote in message ...
:>Yes I have an 8 GB Sybase ASE 11.5.1 database running on a Compaq Proliant
: 5500 4 way
:>2GB memory raid array 3200 it's been running on NT since February. We have
: rebooted
:>the NT Server once, and recycle the Database server only when required
: usually for
:>configuration changes.
:>
:>Klinton Lee wrote:
:>
:>> mkx_at_excite.com writes:
:>>
:>> >After reading many, many articles, press releases, and marketing
:>> >propaganda about the fight for the dominant position on NT, I seem to
:>> >see something missing: Any direct evidence that anyone is using the
:>> >major databases on NT (other than Microsoft's SQL Server). Most
:>> >serious (non-mainframe) projects always seem to go on Unix, AS/400,
:>> >etc. I understand why this is - many organizations are hesitant to go
:>> >"Enterprise on NT".
:>>
:>> >All of the statistics I have seen wrap the UNIX/NT market segments
:>> >together. Thus the "leader in license revenue" may have gotten there
:>> >on UNIX, without selling that much on NT.
:>>
:>> >I simply am interested in seeing where the major work is being done on
:>> >NT specifically, and if it is done elsewhere than MS SQL.
:>>
:>> I agree with Chris' comments below.
:>>
:>> I've been 'fortunate' to have to opportunity to maintain a variety of
: databases
:>> on NT: (Sybase, Oracle, DB2, Informix, MS SQL). The systems are nice for
: quick,
:>> 'development', but if it's a critical production system, I would stray
: away from
:>> NT.
:>>
:>> I know some shops use NT for their production systems on small, simple
: databases.
:>> All of our production level databases reside on Unix...All of our NT
: databases
:>> are 'crash and burn', (test databases).
:>>
:>> Klint
:>>
:>> On Fri, 30 Jul 1999, Chris Weiss wrote:
:>>
:>> > A recent poll on the Team DBA web site showed that over 70% of the
:>> > respondents where using Oracle on NT. However, the overwhelming
: majority of
:>> > those who said that had not used Oracle on NT claimed they would never
: do
:>> > so.
:>> >
:>> > I maintain databases on both NT and Unix, and the difference is scale.
: Big
:>> > databases go on Unix. Small to medium databases go on NT. Unix
: (Solaris)
:>> > is significantly more stable, but the hardware is more expensive and
: the
:>> > personnel needed to administer these databases or servers command
: higher
:>> > salaries. NT is cheaper!!!!!! The Oracle claims concerning a lower
: cost of
:>> > ownership are misleading because these assume large databases in a
:>> > distributed environment. For the **majority** of databases (< 4GB and
: < 50
:>> > users), NT is the best choice for both cost and ease of management.
:>> >
:>> > Contrary to what many people say, Oracle on NT is by far the easiest to
: set
:>> > up, maintain, and monitor. Oracle on NT seems to run best from my
: experience
:>> > using service pack 5 and service pack 3.
:>> >
:>>
:>> .....
:>> .....
:>> .....
:>> .....
:>> .....
:>> .....
:>>
:>> >
:>> > Christopher Weiss
:>> > Professional Services Division
:>> > Compuware Corporation
:>> >
:>> >
:>
--
http://www.washington.edu/pine/faq/
Received on Tue Aug 03 1999 - 09:01:55 CDT
