Re: Oracle vs Sybase (clarification please)

"maxeasy" <codeasy_at_nospam.net> kirjoitteli seuraavaa:

>I wouldn't say MS-SQL and Sybase are the same.
>It was, actually, up until Sybase version 10. But now it's two different
>things.
>
>I work with both Oracle and Sybase and my experience says the following:
>
>If you want to spend LOTS of money, go for Oracle. IT's powerful, has lots
>of features and toys,
>but needs pretty powerful (expensive) hardware to run on, and be babysited
>by dedicated DBA.

I won't agree with either of these points.

I'm running 8.0.5 on Compaq Proliant200, which has 64 M of RAM and 150MHz Pentium with original SCSI-disks. (Linux, though; RH6.2)

It's almost as fast as 7.3 Oracle on 266 MHz PII with 128M of RAM with NT on bigger tasks and faster on small tasks. Both have 5 users, which isn't much, but you didn't specify user count.

I don't know of your definition of 'babysitting', but production database runs usually several months without DBA-work.

Automatized backups, tape rack change once a week. I won't count that as DBA-work as I'm not doing it.

>Same performance level with Sybase, could be reached using LESS powerful
>hardware,

Less than -94 model Compaq? I doubt that.

>and no babysitting will be needed at all.

At all? No backups?

Tuomas Received on Fri Jun 15 2001 - 08:16:39 CDT