Re: DBMS "store and forward"

Mary Anne Espenshade wrote:
>
> I'm on a project that is trying to decide between Oracle and MS SQL
> Server (or even something else if we can justify it). I have no
> experience with either (my DBMS background is in INGRES). The system
> will have wide-spread client-server installations and some data will
> have to be exchanged between servers. It looks to me like what is
> needed is an application that sends a specified subset of the data
> from one server to another under certain circumstances. It doesn't
> seem to me like the sort of thing that needs all the overhead of
> replication or a distributed DB. The project leader's favorite term
> is "store and forward" and he wants a DBMS that will do this
> automatically - store the data locally and forward it later when
> communication becomes available. Is this something DBMSs, Oracle
> especially, do these days? My DB experience is 5 years out of date.
> The servers are PCs running NT.
> --
> Mary Anne Espenshade
> mae_at_aplexus.jhuapl.edu

It depend on the functionality you need. Of course, Oracle is much more sophisticate and flexible on replication. But it is more expensive to implement and especially maintain, in terms of both money and man power.

If it is simple store and forward as you said. You can use Oracle read-only
snapshot. (no replication option required) Then it become much more simpler.

But as I know SQL Server can only do store and forward. Not symmetric replication.

If the functionality is enough, both is simple.

Enjoy,
Michael Received on Wed Oct 09 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST