Re: Comparison between Oracle and Sqlserver 2000

"Porus H Havewala" <porushh_at_bigpond.com> wrote in message news:3B2871C7.EE74C65D_at_bigpond.com...
> Comparison between Oracle and Sqlserver 2000
 

> 6. CLUSTER TECHNOLOGY
> In clustering technology, Oracle is light years ahead, since
> Sql server has nothing like Oracle Parallel server - 2 instances
> acting on the SAME data in active-active configurations. And with
> the new version of Parallel Server in Oracle 9i, renamed as the
> Oracle real application cluster, there is diskless contention
> handling of read-read, read-write, write-read, and write-write
> contention between the instances. This diskless contention
> handling is called Cache Fusion and it means for the first
> time, any application can be placed in a cluster without
> any changes, and it scales upwards by just adding another
> machine to the cluster. Microsoft has nothing like this.

So have you tried real application clusters with cache fusion in a high load real world enironment? Does it actually work. what are the bugs.

If we really are doomed to constantly repeat these flame wars can we at least try to argue rational cases based on real world applications rather than just parroting suppliers marketing feature lists.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK