Re: SQL Server vs Oracle

there really is no competition as far as the two are concerned (personal opinion and experience)., Oracle any day over SQL Server. Don't get me wrong, SQL Server is a decent database, but it's still "Growing Up", where as Oracle has "Grown Up". Not to mention the fact that (last I checked..about 3 months ago) has about 49% of the market share in C/S databases.

Now, administrative cost would be a significant factor, it's more expensive to support Oracle (again my personal opinion) than SQL Server. But if you're looking at direct performance/capabilities, Oracle would be my choice over SQL Server.

let me know what you decide on..

anthony

gmanok_at_worldnet.att.net wrote:

> Our company is currently migrating from Mumps to Oracle databases for
> our online transaction processing systems. We developed our first
> product with Oracle 7.3.2 and all systems run on Solaris version 2.3 to
> 2.5.
>
> We are going to develop a Downtime Monitoring system which shall notify
> engineers of system unavailabilty and allow us to retrieve and record
> system availability parameters and quantify system availibility through
> reports.
>
> Our monitoring system will be client-server based. Each production
> system (7 systems) will write system parameters to shared memory. The
> client(s) will poll each production server every 30 seconds and write
> the data to a database. The production systems are up approximately 16
> hours per day 6 days per week. Each record will be under 1K and we
> would like to keep 3 months of data. The client(s) will be a NT box(es)
> to keep hardware costs lower than those of another Sun box. We own
> licenses for Oracle and SQL-server.
>
> Barring licensing costs, what are the pros and cons of using SQL-Server
> over Oracle and vice versa.
>
> Thanks in advance, Steve gmanok_at_worldnet.att.net
Received on Mon Oct 06 1997 - 00:00:00 CEST