Pro's & Con's on Oracle & SQL Svr?
Dr. Mueller
con's of Oracle and SQL Server 2000? It would be good to see a bullet point
list of the good and bad on each. I am considering starting a database
driven web-site and am quite frankly un-certain on which database would be
best for the job.
Thank you.
BP Margolin
extremely restrictive licenses that essentially prevent publication of such
a point by point pro and con listing without the approval of the RDBMS
vendor.
To defend the RDBMS vendors, their view is that individuals not well-versed
in the power of the product might publish an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Indeed, most individuals who have either an pro-Oracle bias or a pro-SQL
Server bias (I personally have a pro-SQL Server bias) tend to overlook the
power of the other product.
Just about the only industry standard are the benchmarks published at
www.tpc.org. These benchmarks are produced by the RDBMS vendors themselves.
However, keep in mind that the vendors have lots of money to spend on the
hardware configurations, and thus are, in a sense, suspect. Very few
commercial sites are willing to spend millions of dollars on servers and
hard disks.
Both Oracle and SQL Server are very fine products, and unless you have
unusual requirements, either should, when well-programmed, satisfy your
needs. Amazon and eBay (I believe) use Oracle. BarnesandNoble and Dell use
SQL Server. The point being, again, that unless your requirements exceed
that of Amazon, eBay, BarnesandNoble, or Dell, either database should
provide more than enough power.
Your question, as posted, is a bit like asking for a comparison cars. If one
needs a very reliable vehicle for hauling manure than I'd might recommend a
Ford pick-up truck. If on the other hand, you are looking to impress your
girl-friend than a Lamborghini might be a better choice. Until you specify
your criteria, the question is too broad to be answered meaningfully.
If you can quantify your needs, then individuals can address specifics.
--------------------------------------------
BP Margolin
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.
"Dr. Mueller" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fVgw6.8310$IA1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Sybrand Bakker
"Dr. Mueller" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fVgw6.8310$IA1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Google should have the newsgroup archives (acquired from Deja) and there are
several months of flame wars stored there.
Regards,
Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
Dr. Mueller
don't know of one, then no response is required.
Dr. Mueller
one
> needs a very reliable vehicle for hauling manure than I'd might recommend
a
> Ford pick-up truck. If on the other hand, you are looking to impress your
> girl-friend than a Lamborghini might be a better choice. Until you specify
> your criteria, the question is too broad to be answered meaningfully.
>
> If you can quantify your needs, then individuals can address specifics.
No, I never asked for any comparison - I was careful not to ask that. Both
these products do very similar things, so comparing a hauling vehicle to a
Lamborghini is not correct. I'd simply like to know what are the good & bad
points with each database server, like I could do for example with a Honda
Civic and a Ford Escort.
My needs? Fairly simple actually. To be fast, easy to configure, good
tools to edit records/create tables, etc. I'm not sure which one would suit
what I want to do, but I want something that's fairly easy to setup and use.
Good documentation with the product would be a must.
I might grab the EE version of Oracle, and an Evaluation version of SQL
Server 2000 - just to get a feel of them.
Thanks for your response.
wayne
platform (NT/2000)... This is getting to be less and less of a pain because
Windows is getting more and more reliable. If you throw in the fact that
you can set up (rather easily) a cluster of win2k machines with SQL server
clustered, then the reliability issues are much controled, provided you
monitor the cluster and take timely action (ie, do not let a cluster node be
down for a week!).
I do like the ability, however, to switch from any O/S to any other O/S as
transparently as Oracle allows.
On any advanced facilities, Oracle is much more advanced and time-tested
(ie: DB replication, etc...).
I do not know what the pricing is for SQL server, but Oracle is not cheap.
Also, Oracle has rough edges, but the fact that you are dealing so close to
the hardware/software (ie, being able to adjust so many Oracle server
parameters, being able to deal with the rough data so easily, being able to
tweak so many things) gives you a lot of power, not only to squeeze every
bit of performance if you want, but more importantly: being able to recover
from data corruption in the vast majority of the cases.
You might want to take a deep look at database backup capabilities of SQL
Server, I know Oracle's are very advanced.
In the end you also have to look at the philosophies of the developers: MS
has a very strong tendency to "dumb down" their products... Almost to the
point that you can use it without reading any literature. Their tools are
very easy to use, everything has a GUI interface, the settings and
adjustments are few.
Oracle, on the other hand, comes from a UNIX point of view, exposing almost
every possible setting: internal block sizes, archivelog settings, internal
memory allocation sizes, almost every possible data file, storage, and
allocation setting, extensive realtime performance monitoring information,
and a ton of other things.
Having said that, it is easy to see why you can buy Oracle books on at least
25 different topics, while you may get along with the "SQL Server Bible"
book and not need anything else.
So then you must look at the long term view of what you want to do: If it
is something that will grow a lot and may require you to go into bigger and
bigger servers, then get Oracle. If you are running a small-time shop that
will never grow and you just need something better and more secure than MS
Access, then SQL server may work out for you.
I guess you should post what is your situation and how much data you need to
store in this thing before we can give you better advice.
HTH
"Dr. Mueller" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:fVgw6.8310$IA1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Mark Townsend
Mueller at nos...@nospam.com wrote on 3/28/01 8:12 PM:
> I didn't ask for a flame war, I asked for a pro's and con's list. If you
> don't know of one, then no response is required.
>
>
The point being that there will be no truely subjective web site that lists
the pros and cons of either - every site will have a hidden agenda ( or not
so hidden - http://www.microsoft.com/sql/productinfo/compare.htm ). The same
is also true for magazine articles, analyst reports, benchmark results and
market share numbers.
Unfortunately there is no easy way to reduce the discussion of the potential
benefits of very powerful technology to an endless list of possible business
requirements. Perhaps if you can provide a frame of reference you may get
some more useful answers. If you do want to apply some level of due
diligence you may also wish to explore the large number of subjective
responses that have been provided to date on the newsgroups. A quick search
on only the current archive on www.deja.com for +oracle +microsoft +vs
returned 1220 hits. Another 208 hits for +oracle +microsoft +comparison, and
61 hits for +oracle +microsoft +pros +cons.
Happy reading !!
Daniel A. Morgan
I know of no accurate, unbiased comparison on the web. But I'll give you my take
on it
1. Microsoft uses Oracle as the back-end database for a number of its internal
databases because its own product is incapable of running a company the size of
Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft is one of the largest Oracle clients in the State
of Washington (and yes I work in Bellevue and Redmond, WA and I have friends
there).
2. Members of the team at Microsoft that wrote the database engine (currently in
SQL Server) left the company last year and formed their own company ... the last
time I visited them their host O/S was Linux. So you can pretty easily figure
out they weren't running the product they developed in their own company.
3. Of the two Fortune 500 companies I have consulted with in the last two years
... none allow SQL Server for line-of-business applications due to stability,
scalability, security, and performance. They mandate Oracle or DB/2 Universal
Server.
4. The company I currently consult to was founded by ex-Microsoft employees and
its current product line is 100% SQL Server based. Right now they are recreating
their product line in Oracle ... due to customer demand.
I don't think the information you seek is in any written comparison by people
that may or may not have a vested interest in what they write. I think the
information is in the reality of what is used in the marketplace.
Daniel A. Morgan
BP Margolin
Just want to express a different viewpoint re:
> Oracle, on the other hand, comes from a UNIX point of view, exposing
almost
> every possible setting: internal block sizes, archivelog settings,
internal
> memory allocation sizes, almost every possible data file, storage, and
> allocation setting, extensive realtime performance monitoring information,
> and a ton of other things.
What you say is true. However the implication is open to interpretation. The
SQL Server viewpoint is that it is more efficient (performance-wise) to have
the database continually monitor itself and dynamically adjust its settings
to reflect the load.
With Oracle, the DBA has to "pick a point in time" and then issues settings
for that point in time. While the settings for that point in time may be
optimal, the likelihood that the database load is constant is relatively
small.
SQL Server, instead, continuously monitors itself and its performance, and
dynamically adjusts its configuration. This tends to provide, overall and
over time, a better level of optimization than doing a point in time
optimization.
I do accept that it is difficult for many Oracle DBAs to believe that the
software can do a better job by itself and without intervention, however the
TPC benchmarks would appear to support this viewpoint.
BP Margolin
> 1. Microsoft uses Oracle as the back-end database for a number of its
internal
> databases because its own product is incapable of running a company the
size of
> Microsoft. In fact, Microsoft is one of the largest Oracle clients in the
State
> of Washington (and yes I work in Bellevue and Redmond, WA and I have
friends
> there).
If by "largest Oracle clients" you mean number of licenses, you are probably
correct. But then I would expect that Oracle is probably one of the "largest
SQL Server clients" as well. Each vendor is going to have machines running
products from its competitors. Each vendor provides links to each other's
product and must test that the software works.
However, Microsoft does not use Oracle to run its business.
Galen Boyer
> I'm not sure which one would suit what I want to do, but I want
> something that's fairly easy to setup and use.
Just like most all MS products, SQLServer is very easy to setup
and use.
Its when you get into supporting big corporate data that you need
to start looking at the real differences.
--
I don't want to be the rock. Yeah, okay, what do you want to be?
I want to be the piece of glass.
kyle hailey
>SQL Server clients" as well.
Unlikely. I never saw hide nor hair of an SQL Sever database at Oracle
and I worked there for 10 years (ok, SQL Server is just young'in) in
any of the groups I was in such as support, porting or development.
I'm sure there a few around to work on conversion kits and maybe a
couple for poking at performace, but I was in the performance group at
Oracle and never even saw one. We'd spend our time working on Oracle
and very, very little time poking at other databases. On the other
hand reading white papers and TPC results and writeups and such was
much more the method of looking into other database vendors
functionality performance etc.
Now if you want to address Microsoft products at Oracle there is
plenty of Word and Excell but even with these Oracle had some funny
rules about them.
Best Wishes
Kyle Hailey
wayne
The
> SQL Server viewpoint is that it is more efficient (performance-wise) to
have
> the database continually monitor itself and dynamically adjust its
settings
> to reflect the load.
I personally do not like the point f view of " we know better than you know
about your own system," but to each his own I guess. Also, Oraqcle is doing
some of this automatically in the 9i upcoming version, so I guess it does
not matter _that_ much.
Also, be carfeul, there is a difference between "self-monitoring and
adjusting" and "hard-coded unchangeable settings." MS loves to hard-code
stuff.
> With Oracle, the DBA has to "pick a point in time" and then issues
settings
> for that point in time. While the settings for that point in time may be
> optimal, the likelihood that the database load is constant is relatively
> small.
Not necessarily. For example, there are statistics that are gathered and
you are given a grand total, not a point-in-time total (ie: in-memory sorts
vs disk-sorts, useful when choosing sort area size to tune for better
performance).
> SQL Server, instead, continuously monitors itself and its performance, and
> dynamically adjusts its configuration. This tends to provide, overall and
> over time, a better level of optimization than doing a point in time
> optimization.
Again, "point-in-time" as you express it and imply it is all Oracle can give
you (or it is all a DBA can do) is misleading. No everything is point in
time.
> I do accept that it is difficult for many Oracle DBAs to believe that the
> software can do a better job by itself and without intervention, however
the
> TPC benchmarks would appear to support this viewpoint.
Oh, let's not get into benchmarks. They are always rigged to tilt in favor
of whoever is paying for the tests (Certianly MS and Oracle both included).
Also, it will trigger a holy war and we should not loose objectivity here...
On the other hand, if you can make MS SQL server run faster than 1/3 of the
speed of Oracle you can get a million dollars! (go to
http://www.oracle.com).
BP Margolin
No disagreements until the end :-)
> On the other hand, if you can make MS SQL server run faster than 1/3 of
the
> speed of Oracle you can get a million dollars! (go to
> http://www.oracle.com).
Look at the fine print of the offer. There's a number of very debateable
issues, not the least of which is that Oracle can impose conditions
(hardware and consulting services) that the challenger must completely bear
the cost of, and that can easily exceed a million dollars ... but the one
that is most interesting is: even if Oracle loses the challenge, and has to
pay a million dollars, the customer can not publicize the fact.
To my ears, sure doesn't sound like Oracle has a lot of confidence in its
own product. Instead it sounds like Oracle Marketing is very adept at
creating impressive but hollow challenges.
Bottom line, as I stated originally: both Oracle and SQL Server are
excellent products, and both are enterprise level databases. Preferences for
one or the other, tend to boil down to familiarity with one or the other.
Fuzzy
<bpm...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Both Oracle and Microsoft (and all the other commercial RDBMS vendors) have
>extremely restrictive licenses that essentially prevent publication of such
>a point by point pro and con listing without the approval of the RDBMS
>vendor.
They prevent performance comparisons, not feature comparisons. But
the big problems with feature comparisons is keeping them
up-to-date/accurate, and covering everyone's personal favourite areas
(mine are standard SQL support and architectural features (especially
the optimiser) - yours may well differ). A long time ago a guy named
Danial Druker (I think that was his name) made a reasonable stab at
this, but that was in 1992/3, and things have come a long way.
Last year I thought "Hey, what the hell, I'll give it a try" and
started developing a straight-forward list like this
(Y = yes, N = no, - = not applicable, ? = I don't know)
Section 1 - Basic Architecture
--------------------------------------------
DB2 INF MSS O8i SYB
Portable to varied OSes Y Y N Y Y
Multi-process architecture (not NT) Y Y - Y Y
SMP Support Y Y Y Y Y
Configurable SMP use ? Y N Y Y
Auto Database Recovery on restart Y Y Y Y Y
Multiplexed Log Files ? Y N Y N
Multiple Databases per instance Y Y Y N Y
etc ...
but I got to the point where I had about 500 features, and didn't know
the answers for some of the DBs (Oracle and SS I know well, and DB2
and Sybase reasonably ... but still there are gaps). The real killer
was then thinking "Do I list ANSI SQL compliance in detail for each
command".
So I stopped. I see regular requests for this kind of info, but am
loathe to throw my half-formed (and potentially half-informed) list
out everytime there's a request. I might consider dusting it of and
throwing it up on a web site for public consumption and contribution
.. in fact, that's probably not a bad idea.
I've rambled enough. Flame away.
Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)
Fuzzy
gra...@nospam.student.canberra.edu.au (Fuzzy) wrote:
And where would I be without typos.
>Section 1 - Basic Architecture
>--------------------------------------------
> DB2 INF MSS O8i SYB
>
>Configurable SMP use ? Y N Y Y
should have been Y, Y, Y, Y, Y (copied the wrong line).
Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)
wayne
> issues, not the least of which is that Oracle can impose conditions
> (hardware and consulting services) that the challenger must completely
bear
> the cost of, and that can easily exceed a million dollars ... but the one
> that is most interesting is: even if Oracle loses the challenge, and has
to
> pay a million dollars, the customer can not publicize the fact.
Well I have not read it at all, I confess. It's always sounded to me like a
very bold challenge.
> To my ears, sure doesn't sound like Oracle has a lot of confidence in its
> own product. Instead it sounds like Oracle Marketing is very adept at
> creating impressive but hollow challenges.
Agree and disagree... I agree because of all the conditions you say Oracle
puts on the tests; but I disaagreee becaus eof these reasons: Oracle uses
only Oracle within its corporate systems; I work with Oracle every day and
know first hand how good it is; and the comparison states three times
faster, not simply "faster". I think if Oracle tunes the DB and the results
are a DB that is thrice as fast, then it's still a good deal.
> Bottom line, as I stated originally: both Oracle and SQL Server are
> excellent products, and both are enterprise level databases. Preferences
for
> one or the other, tend to boil down to familiarity with one or the other.
Yes, of course. It would be very hard to be an absolute master at both,
unless they were both very simple (ie: MS Access vs dBase).
Overall I think we agree, though!
Mark Townsend
that Oracle AND MS-SQLServer 'both are enterprise level databases' - I guess
it's all part of what your definition of an enterprise is.
I have yet to come across a single site yet that is running SS in the 'glass
house' for business critical applications - and as a proof point I'd offer
the amount of money MS is spending at the moment trying to persuade
everybody that they are. Stands to reason that if SQL Server was being
widely used in this manner, MS wouldn't be needing to resort to TV adds
saying it was. Simply adding enterprise to your marketing tag line does not
make you enterprise ready.
Anyhow, in oder to subvert this thread even further - anybody know any good
Oracle or Microsoft jokes ? I have a few that I'll gladly share if somebody
wants to contribute first.
in article 9a0r8d$a...@freepress.concentric.net, wayne at n...@email.please.com
wrote on 3/29/01 6:32 PM:
Tim Kannel
> its current product line is 100% SQL Server based. Right now they are recreating
> their product line in Oracle ... due to customer demand.
Sounds familiar. The company that I work for is also converting some of its
products to Oracle as a result of customer demand (if the decision
was up to us we would stick with SQL Server). But that doesn't
mean that the customer decided on Oracle based on knowledge of
the product. As someone else mentioned, software developers,
and their customers, tend to stick with what's familiar -
either a technical familiarity or a familiarity from product marketing.
In our case the decision by the customer to use Oracle was quite possibly
not based on any (or at least not many) technical qualifications. Can you
be certain of the reasoning behind the decisions of the people
referred to?
--
Tim Kannel
TCAP 3.1 - Captures console I/O to a file
ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/sysutl/tcap31.zip
Daniel A. Morgan
Absolutely not true. No business the size of Microsoft can run on SQL Server.
You might want to start by looking at Microsoft's WebTV operation for starters.
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
> SQL Server viewpoint is that it is more efficient (performance-wise) to have
> the database continually monitor itself and dynamically adjust its settings
> to reflect the load.
Which, of course, explains why no one with SQL Server has ever collected the
millions of dollars in prize money Larry Ellison keeps offering if anyone can
get SQL Server to run as fast as Oracle.
Daniel A. Morgan
Dr. Mueller
Jim Kennedy
that people (in the ad) are amazed that no one has had to do anything to the
server for 3 days and the server doesn't care.
I should hope not. It better run for a heck of a lot longer than 3 days.
I had a local client that moved their data center across town. They were
running mainly on UNIX (the brand isn't important) boxes and had Oracle and
a ton of other things on them. Their major problem was that these systems
had been up so long (many years) without a problem that when they took the
machines down they had a problem starting all the programs. The problem was
that over the years people had added more and more processes and some had
never been added to the startup script. It took them awhile to figure out
all the programs they needed to kick off, but everything worked out just
fine.
Jim
"Mark Townsend" <markbt...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B6E93D84.5635%markbt...@home.com...
Jim Kennedy
marketing hooha.
"Daniel A. Morgan" <dmo...@exesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3AC40DE3...@exesolutions.com...
Excuse Me ...
aspect to evaluate the two?
For instance .......
HOW MUCH THEY COST US? :-) VERY OBJECTIVE, ISN'T IT?! :-D
Anyway, I use both MS SQL and MySQL in my company. For both $$ and old-habit
reasons.
Just a reply to help us laugh a while and that's all. :-)
ExCuseMe
MBA, MCSE, MCDBA
"Dr. Mueller" <nos...@nospam.com> 撰寫於郵件
news:fVgw6.8310$IA1.6...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Dr. Mueller
shop scenario is the one that fits what I'm doing. Thanks again for your
help.
Regards.
John Russell
wrote:
>Good documentation with the product would be a must.
Well then, the choice is clear... :-) (See URL below.)
John
--
Got an Oracle database question?
Try the search engine for the database docs at:
http://tahiti.oracle.com/
wayne
No problem, just trying to be objective, not everyone in this world needs a
terabyte data warehouse (although some people try to tell you why everyone
_must_ have one, or be prepared to have one!).
wayne
Actually, yes deciding by cost alone is very objective, from a certain point
of view.
Cost is _certainly_ a factor, believe it or not.
Niall Litchfield
Microsoft.com runs on NT/SQL Server (well now the 2k editions)
Microsofts line of business apps ran on MS platforms (at least they were
said to a couple of years ago) .
In short. I don't believe you. Of course if you can provide chapter and
verse as to which Oracle products MS uses to run its business and on what
hardware platform I might be tempted to believe you, after all Oracle would
be publicising the fact would they not.
meanwhile I can't tell you about the line of buiness apps but www.webtv.com
is running on IIS5/Win2k
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Daniel A. Morgan" <dmo...@exesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3AC40D64...@exesolutions.com...
Neil Pike
> Agree and disagree... I agree because of all the conditions you say Oracle
> puts on the tests; but I disaagreee becaus eof these reasons: Oracle uses
> only Oracle within its corporate systems; I work with Oracle every day and
> know first hand how good it is; and the comparison states three times
> faster, not simply "faster". I think if Oracle tunes the DB and the results
> are a DB that is thrice as fast, then it's still a good deal.
So if Oracle came in to look at a $100,000 (hardware and software) SQL Server
system and made it 3 times faster by "selling" you $250,000 of consulting,
$100,000 of Oracle licenses and $1,000,000 of hardware then that would be a
good deal? By my thinking you'd have just spent 13.5 times the money for a
3-fold gain in performance.
I'd like to know if anyone actually took up this marketing challenge - I
can't believe anyone would be stupid enough.....
Not that there's anything wrong with the Oracle product, it's just the Oracle
marketing dept that seems to have some very dubious policies.
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faq
wayne
Server
> system and made it 3 times faster by "selling" you $250,000 of consulting,
> $100,000 of Oracle licenses and $1,000,000 of hardware then that would be
a
> good deal?
They say 3 times faster, not cheaper!
Anyway, don't get worked up, I do not really care about it and I do not plan
to take them up on it. I am still running all the files (including the o/s)
on a single raid5 array. If I want faster I have a lot of things to try.
My reference to this was more of an aside than anything else.
Mark Townsend
Hmm - right back at you - see
http://www.microsoft.com/jobs/search/jobDetail.asp?fromPage=viewJobs&jobNumb
er=1101158&page=1&msid1=1002324267&msid2=1661618132&msid3=-1767185277&msid4=
-567799586
There also seems to be some Unix in use at MS as well
http://www.microsoft.com/jobs/search/jobDetail.asp?fromPage=viewJobs&jobNumb
er=1101049&page=1&msid1=1002324267&msid2=1661618132&msid3=-1767185277&msid4=
-567799586
http://www.microsoft.com/jobs/search/jobDetail.asp?fromPage=viewJobs&jobNumb
er=1101404&page=4&msid1=1002324267&msid2=1661618132&msid3=-1767185277&msid4=
-567799586
Even some Redbrick on Unix - now that's truly bizarre
http://www.microsoft.com/jobs/search/jobDetail.asp?fromPage=viewJobs&jobNumb
er=1101924&page=3&msid1=1002324267&msid2=1661618132&msid3=-1767185277&msid4=
-567799586
in article 3ac49b
1b$0$12248$ed9e...@reading.news.pipex.net, Niall Litchfield at
n-litc...@audit-commission.gov.uk wrote on 3/30/01 6:41 AM:
Mark Townsend
Mueller at nos...@nospam.com wrote on 3/29/01 10:50 PM:
It always surprises me that people tend to naturally think MS products are
more appropriate for the small-time shop, and Oracle more appropriate for
large shops.
For instance, if I was a part time DBA, I'd want a product that allowed me
to do as much as possible during normal business hours - without the need to
come in at night or over the weekend. Oracle's ability to have reports
running at the same time as users are entering data without these users
affecting each other, it's ability to do online backups as well as restores,
support for online index builds, built in resource management, fast
recovery, fast data loading etc would all be things I would be looking for
to make my life as easy as possible no matter how large my shop. And
Oracle9i's new dynamic memory management and ability to re-org and redefine
tables and other database objects online is only going to make this even
better.
After all, high availability and scalability actually means "is the system
there when I want to use it", and "can I get the performance I need to do
this task now, or do I have to wait". These issues are experienced by all
sites, both large and small, and do NOT necessarily only equate to sites
supporting 50,000 users online 24x7.
Niall Litchfield
It is not in general true that Oracle DBA's tune etc for a point in time.
One might as well say that SQL Server DBA's do nothing because the software
does it all for them. Neither is true or fair.
Also , like many Oracle DBA's, I do not go by TPC benchmarks. There are at
least two reasons for this
1. I do not run, and nor am I likely to the multi-million pound beasts that
these benchmarks are obtained on and
2. And much more importantly, none of my database applications are the TPC
benchmark and so it is just not valid to use them as a basis for assessing
performance of my apps.
(one could of course include 3. Oracle doesn't figure highly if one was
cynical enough <G>).
I ought to add that I entirely mistrust Larry's "9iAS is x times faster than
your current solution" marketing guff for exactly the same reason.
What I do say is that both Oracle and SQL Server are enterprise class DBMS
and almost certainly both will meet the needs of your company. The question
as to which is better so often comes down to what environment do you have
and what hardware and software expertise do you have or can you get. If you
have 25 MSCE types in the comapny and no Unix experience at all you'd be
pretty brave to go the Oracle route (even on NT). The reverse obviously also
applies.In other words consider your business needs and skills before the
technical capabilities of the product.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"BP Margolin" <bpm...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3ac36...@news3.prserv.net...
> Wayne,
>
> Just want to express a different viewpoint re:
>
> > Oracle, on the other hand, comes from a UNIX point of view, exposing
> almost
> > every possible setting: internal block sizes, archivelog settings,
> internal
> > memory allocation sizes, almost every possible data file, storage, and
> > allocation setting, extensive realtime performance monitoring
information,
> > and a ton of other things.
>
> What you say is true. However the implication is open to interpretation.
The
> SQL Server viewpoint is that it is more efficient (performance-wise) to
have
> the database continually monitor itself and dynamically adjust its
settings
> to reflect the load.
>
> With Oracle, the DBA has to "pick a point in time" and then issues
settings
> for that point in time. While the settings for that point in time may be
> optimal, the likelihood that the database load is constant is relatively
> small.
>
> SQL Server, instead, continuously monitors itself and its performance, and
> dynamically adjusts its configuration. This tends to provide, overall and
> over time, a better level of optimization than doing a point in time
> optimization.
>
> I do accept that it is difficult for many Oracle DBAs to believe that the
> software can do a better job by itself and without intervention, however
the
> TPC benchmarks would appear to support this viewpoint.
>
Niall Litchfield
I am reminded of the aberdeen group study in 1997 which concluded in part
that oracle was not cost effective vs sql server because oracle needed 40
DBA's at 90K a time whereas sql server could be looked after by sys admins
in their 'off time' and therefore had zero cost. I daresay it is still
referenced on the ms sql server site.
Marketing = BS
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Neil Pike" <10057...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00000f3...@compuserve.com...
Daniel A. Morgan
locking. It does. Right up until it runs out of row level locks and starts
locking pages.
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
> Is it possible for us to use something objective even in the worldwide
> aspect to evaluate the two?
> For instance .......
>
> HOW MUCH THEY COST US? :-) VERY OBJECTIVE, ISN'T IT?! :-D
I can't think of any criteria I care less about when deciding on an RDBMS than
cost.
My first concern is stability. If it isn't up 7x24 it is worthless.
My second concern is security. If some 16 year old kid can hack the system it is
worthless.
My third concern is scalability. If it won't scale it will soon become
worthless.
My fourth concern is performance. Because I can always buy more CPUs, more RAM,
more machines if I need to.
Then ... and only then ... do I start worrying about the cost of the hardware,
the cost of the O/S, the cost of the RDBMS, the cost of the sysadmins, the cost
of DBAs and the cost of developers.
It doesn't matter what it costs if it doesn't work as a long-term solution.
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
> is running on IIS5/Win2k
Which of these is the relational database?
Daniel A. Morgan
wayne
> there when I want to use it", and "can I get the performance I need to do
> this task now, or do I have to wait". These issues are experienced by all
> sites, both large and small, and do NOT necessarily only equate to sites
> supporting 50,000 users online 24x7.
I did not mean that small shops do not need what you say... Indeed they do
and could benefit from it. I spoke from the point of view that it is much
easier to do those things on a small-time shop than on a big DB: In a
small system you can tell everyone to get out of the system for five minutes
while you back up (for example). It is equivalent to an Oracle cold backup,
and is something impossible to do on a big shop: There are lots of things
going on that cannot be stopped, there are people using the system that you
do not even know who or where they are, and you will _not_ be down for only
five minute for a cold backup.
For these reasons, trivial things in a small-time shop that MS Access and/or
dBase do not even begin to worry about, those things are huge deals in a
bigger DB that Oracle enables you to handle much better.
wayne
than
> cost.
You're obviously not in upper management.
> Then ... and only then ... do I start worrying about the cost of the
hardware,
> the cost of the O/S, the cost of the RDBMS, the cost of the sysadmins, the
cost
> of DBAs and the cost of developers.
> It doesn't matter what it costs if it doesn't work as a long-term
solution.
And hence the management-sys designer disagreement is born. Couple that
with what someone reads in a magazine about the (lower) costs of whatever
other database server, and you now have to worry about cost :-).
I did not say cost should be the most important thing, but that it is
definitely an issue, how important depends on what your place is in the
company.
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
> than
> > cost.
>
> You're obviously not in upper management.
I am a hired-gun ... a consultant for hire. And I usually report directly to
upper management. My point was not the money is not important. But rather that
saving money on software and hardware (buying SQL Server and NT) at the expense
of losing customers due to performance and down-time, or paying employees to
come in on weekends and reboot servers, or worse yet having your database hacked
and losing proprietary information is no savings at all. What counts is TOTAL
cost of ownership over the life of the applications life cycle.
> > Then ... and only then ... do I start worrying about the cost of the
> hardware,
> > the cost of the O/S, the cost of the RDBMS, the cost of the sysadmins, the
> cost
> > of DBAs and the cost of developers.
> > It doesn't matter what it costs if it doesn't work as a long-term
> solution.
>
> And hence the management-sys designer disagreement is born. Couple that
> with what someone reads in a magazine about the (lower) costs of whatever
> other database server, and you now have to worry about cost :-).
>
> I did not say cost should be the most important thing, but that it is
> definitely an issue, how important depends on what your place is in the
> company.
As I stated above ... of course it is. But it is the total cost of ownership ...
not the cost of the software and hardware alone: Something that is always
insignificant in a major development project. Of course SQL Server costs less
than Oracle. Of course NT/Win2000 costs less than Solaris. Of course Oracle on
Solaris will be up 7x24x365. Of course NT/Win2000 won't be.
The day the numbers change Fortune 500 companies will stop paying people like me
to convert systems based on SQL Server to Oracle.
Daniel A. Morgan
Howard J. Rogers
> > > I can't think of any criteria I care less about when deciding on an
RDBMS
> > than
> > > cost.
> >
> > You're obviously not in upper management.
>
> I am a hired-gun ...
You're an intellectually dishonest person who can't admit that he doesn't
know the end of the 'create database' command from the start of the rest of
his create database script.
God help your students, and as for the Fortune 500 (which you so readily
trot out to prove your credentials), I notice that Nasdaq is down around 60%
from a year ago. Shurely just a coincidence. But maybe not.
>a consultant for hire. And I usually report directly to
> upper management.
Do they know you claim that you can create databases without a system
rollback segment? Do they know that when confronted with the truth, you
just pretend it hasn't been stated?
Lovely, objective, Fortune 500 objectivity. Has about much truth behind it
as your claim that you don't have a system rollback segment.
>
> The day the numbers change Fortune 500 companies will stop paying people
like me
> to convert systems based on SQL Server to Oracle.
>
Puff, puff, puff. I think what we learn here is that the Fortune 500 have
no respect for the value of money.
HJR
> Daniel A. Morgan
>
Niall Litchfield
Equally the senior jobs at Oracle which require MS Technologists suggest
that windows isn't exactly unknown at oracle. The claim that I disbelieve is
that Microsoft runs its business on Oracle rather than MS products. I still
see no evidence to support this assertion. If I do I will happily apologise
as I try to make a habit of doing when I am wrong.
As far as webtv goes, I have no way of verifying the RDBMS in use. I *can*
verify that its web server are MS technology. see netcraft.com for the
proof. Of course Daniel might wish to argue that the webtv operation doesn't
rely on its webservers for its line of business. Seems unlikely to me.
In the end where I am coming from is the position that MS bashing (or Oracle
bashing) is a task best left to the marketing gurus and lawyers (and of
course those good folks at slashdot). Daniels original statement that "No
business the size of Microsoft can run on SQL Server" seems to me to be
unfounded prejudice. As for me, I am happy to state that they are both Grade
A companies with Grade A products. Our task as IT pofessionals is to make
them work in the best interest of those organisations we work for. That is
quite big enough a task for me.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
"Mark Townsend" <markbt...@home.com> wrote in message
news:B6EA9284.5AEA%markbt...@home.com.
..a bunch of unix/oracle etc jobs at MS snipped
wayne
> I am a hired-gun ... a consultant for hire.
Hey, we have something in common!
> upper management. My point was not the money is not important. But rather
that
> saving money on software and hardware (buying SQL Server and NT) at the
expense
> of losing customers due to performance and down-time, or paying employees
to
> come in on weekends and reboot servers, or worse yet having your database
hacked
> and losing proprietary information is no savings at all. What counts is
TOTAL
> cost of ownership over the life of the applications life cycle.
And good and valid arguments those are, but try convincing the marketing VP
who just read a magazine article which "proves" something else is cheaper...
Unfortunately those things do happen sometimes, so cost (or advertised low
cost) sometimes does get in the way.
I am on the same side as you, and I believe in the right situation,. Oracle
is by far the cheapest solution.
Also, the thing that gets brough up most often as something we should switch
to is not SQL Server, but DB2 on the AS/400 surprisingly. The IBM people
are really desperate to increase market share. I suppose they are as
desperate as Oracle was when my biggets client switched to Oracle (they
bought licenses at about 40% of advertised price!).
> insignificant in a major development project. Of course SQL Server costs
less
> than Oracle. Of course NT/Win2000 costs less than Solaris. Of course
Oracle on
Did not know SQL server cost less, actually! I do not know about NT,
though... Does Solaris charge by the user? I thought they did not. If
they do not, there has to be a user count after which Solaris is actually
cheaper.
> Solaris will be up 7x24x365. Of course NT/Win2000 won't be.
Really? How about clustered Win2K?
wayne
take your "rollback segment that crashed the NASDAQ" argument somewhere
else!
Sheesh, you really like theat rollback segment, huh?!
Howard J. Rogers
"wayne" <n...@email.please.com> wrote in message
news:9a7kc4$o...@freepress.concentric.net...
Certainly do. For one thing, it exists.
HJR
>
Daniel A. Morgan
> know the end of the 'create database' command from the start of the rest of
> his create database script.
Well so far, in addition to the University, I've managed to fool both AT&T and
Boeing so badly they asked me to come back a second time. The local consulting
division of Oracle. A NYSE listed bank. And a few other concerns including one
of the Baby Bells.
If you've got a problem with the fact that I didn't send you the spool file get
over it. I told you I was dropping the thread ... and it is dropped. If you want
to keeping beating on it please find someone else who enjoys this kind of
exchange.
But if you are overflowing with angst by all means e-mail me directly as I don't
think this forum is the proper place for this off-topic commentary.
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
obviously one can negotiate pricing of anything if sufficiently large. When I
said Solaris is more expensive ... I was referring to the cost of the hardware
and software assuming the minimum Solaris server to be something like an
Enterprise 450 with 4-6 CPUs.
I haven't worked with clustered Win2K but clustered or not it still has the
liability of being the most easily hacked and the most likely target for a viral
attack. From my experience (and it is 3 Fortune 500s only ... not all of them)
major companies go to UNIX when they need scalability. I know the results of
testing from internal labs at two Fortune 500s and while I don't know the
specifics they do not allow SQL Server or Win2K to be used for line-of-business
apps: Only Oracle and DB2 Universal Server.
I have found from my experience that marketing VPs have no credibility when
discussing IS issues if you ask the right questions. I always present costs as
"Total Cost of Ownership" rather than this piece of software vs. that piece of
software or this server vs. that sever.
It is truly amazing sometimes to watch people quibble over a $20K difference in
pricing while ten people costing the company $75/hour sit in a conference room
for endless hours debating the issue.
Daniel A. Morgan
Howard J. Rogers
> > You're an intellectually dishonest person who can't admit that he
doesn't
> > know the end of the 'create database' command from the start of the rest
of
> > his create database script.
>
> Well so far, in addition to the University, I've managed to fool both AT&T
and
> Boeing so badly they asked me to come back a second time. The local
consulting
> division of Oracle. A NYSE listed bank. And a few other concerns including
one
> of the Baby Bells.
>
> If you've got a problem with the fact that I didn't send you the spool
file get
> over it. I told you I was dropping the thread ... and it is dropped. If
you want
> to keeping beating on it please find someone else who enjoys this kind of
> exchange.
I didn't ask for a spool file. Just a report on what dba_rollback_segments
reports and/or what the relevant line in your sql.bsq read. You made the
claim you could create a database without a system rollback segment, I just
asked you to verify it. And 'dropping the thread' as you so cutely put it
is just your way of dealing with the fact that you can't. It's an approach
I find, as I said, intellectually dishonest.
The intellectually honest thing to do would be simply to admit your error or
mistake, not claim that something so basic as what gets created with an
Oracle database is somehow off topic as far as this forum is concerned.
Who you 'fool' to pay your consulting bills impresses me not at all.
HJR
wayne
Though
> obviously one can negotiate pricing of anything if sufficiently large.
When I
Hey for some reason I have seen drastically reduced pricing even for small
installs (about 50+ users).
> said Solaris is more expensive ... I was referring to the cost of the
hardware
> and software assuming the minimum Solaris server to be something like an
> Enterprise 450 with 4-6 CPUs.
I thought we were talking about a small install, not a big-time thing
screaming for UNIX.
Daniel A. Morgan
> I didn't ask for a spool file. Just a report on what dba_rollback_segments
> reports and/or what the relevant line in your sql.bsq read. You made the
> claim you could create a database without a system rollback segment, I just
> asked you to verify it.
I did. Several times.
Version 8.1.7 does not handle this as do pervious versions of Oracle.
If you don't believe me try installing it yourself on your own machine. If you
don't like it complain to Oracle.
I wasn't being cute. I just don't like abusive behavior ... in person or on the
net. And whether you see what you posted in that light or not it is the
impression you gave to me and still give.
Daniel A. Morgan
Tuomas Hosia
>Bottom line, as I stated originally: both Oracle and SQL Server are
>excellent products, and both are enterprise level databases. Preferences for
>one or the other, tend to boil down to familiarity with one or the other.
'Enterprise level database' on a PC?
You must be joking.
Or your definition of 'enterprise' is a company with 100 people.
Tuomas
Howard J. Rogers
> >
> > I didn't ask for a spool file. Just a report on what
dba_rollback_segments
> > reports and/or what the relevant line in your sql.bsq read. You made
the
> > claim you could create a database without a system rollback segment, I
just
> > asked you to verify it.
>
> I did. Several times.
No, you simply repeated your claims of a perfectly functioning database
which, apparently, lacks a system rollback segment. You did not post output
from dba_rollback_segs, or your sql.bsq, and your claim that you do not have
a system rollback segment was simply that. A claim. Why can't you just cut
and paste the output from 'select * from dba_rollback_segs' and have done
with it?
>
> Version 8.1.7 does not handle this as do pervious versions of Oracle.
>
Yes it does, in this respect at least.
> If you don't believe me try installing it yourself on your own machine. If
you
> don't like it complain to Oracle.
I have... and there's a system rollback segment there, large as life, and
the first line in dba_rollback_segs. And there's no point in complaining
to Oracle when the problem is not the (extremely well-known behaviour of the
product) but the behaviour of a poster here who claims the impossible.
>
> I wasn't being cute. I just don't like abusive behavior ... in person or
on the
> net. And whether you see what you posted in that light or not it is the
> impression you gave to me and still give.
>
I don't mind mistakes or errors, and I don't hold them against anyone. I
make plenty of them myself. What I find objectionable (and abusive of the
trust of other posters and lurkers here) is to make a claim, and then
disappear when challenged on it. I repeat *all* you have to do is run
'select * from dba_rollback_segs' and post the results.... you will either
demonstrate the veracity of your claims, or you will be proved wrong. It's
black-and-white. If you prove me wrong, I shall publish a profuse apology,
and you'll hear no more from me.
I will be intrigued to know how the hell Oracle handles DML on the data
dictionary tables *without* a system rollback segment, and the output from
the start of your sql.bsq would go a long way to explaining how that can
happen, but you will have demonstrated admirably that miracles can happen.
Of course, if the output from dba_rollback_segs actually demonstrates that
there *is* a system rollback segment, you will have some explaining to do.
HJR
> Daniel A. Morgan
>
BP Margolin
> Or your definition of 'enterprise' is a company with 100 people.
Yup, we all know that both Dell.com and BarnesandNoble.com, both of which
use SQL Server to service their Web Sites, are companies with only 100
people.
----------------------------------------
BP Margolin
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.
"Tuomas Hosia" <tuomas...@helsoft.fi> wrote in message
news:3ac97215.3087869040@news.helsoft.fi...
Neil Pike
"PC's" these days can have more memory, disk and cpu's than the mainframes I
worked on a few years ago. Quite a few enterprises rely on NT on "a pc" for
core systems. Most enterprises have a mix of IBM mainframe, Tandem mainframe,
Unix and NT systems, all running core systems.
> 'Enterprise level database' on a PC?
>
> You must be joking.
>
> Or your definition of 'enterprise' is a company with 100 people.
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Daniel A. Morgan
is a company with more than 50,000 employees.
Anyone that thinks that an enterprise database can be run on a PC is describing
something I would call a glorified hot-dog stand.
Daniel A. Morgan
wayne
runs Oracle Enterprise Edition, even with very few users?
BP Margolin
What the hell does the size of a company have to do with the capabilities of
a database? According to your cockamamie definition, if a company with more
than 50,000 employees is using Access, then Access is an enterprise level
database.
Enterprise level databases are defined by their capabilities ... not by the
number of employees in a company.
----------------------------------------
BP Margolin
Please reply only to the newsgroups.
When posting, inclusion of SQL (CREATE TABLE ..., INSERT ..., etc.) which
can be cut and pasted into Query Analyzer is appreciated.
"Daniel A. Morgan" <dmo...@exesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3ACA4787...@exesolutions.com...
Mark Townsend
wrote on 4/3/01 8:48 AM:
> Tuomas,
>
>> Or your definition of 'enterprise' is a company with 100 people.
>
> Yup, we all know that both Dell.com and BarnesandNoble.com, both of which
> use SQL Server to service their Web Sites, are companies with only 100
> people.
The online transaction rate for both would be about the same as 100
concurrent users banging away at order entry. Anybody want to bet what their
respective fufilment systems are running on ?
Dell is currently advertising for 6 positions with Oracle experience, all in
internal system support. There are no SQL Server positions being advertised
that I could find - who is looking after Dell.com ?
http://ausoladbpjap4.us.dell.com/careers/app/default.asp
Daniel A. Morgan
Standard, Enterprise. If one looks at the feature set that separates Standard
Edition from Enterprise Edition you could pretty much say that anyone that can
use SQL Server can use Oracle Standard Edition. But the additional features in
the Enterprise Edition are things that cover territory where I would steer
toward UNIX and Oracle and/or DB2.
Which is a long way of getting to the point which is that I disagree. People
that don't have an Enterprise should by the Standard Edition and save
themselves some money.
Daniel A. Morgan
Daniel A. Morgan
developer than I and I salute you. Heck if you can connect 50,000 people to SQL
Server simultaneously my hat is off to you.
But my point is that the size and requirements for a database often (not always
but then when is anything in this business absolute) related to the number of
employees (or customers). As a business grows it has offices located in multiple
time zones and in multiple countries. It has a need to store data in multiple
languages. And to connect all of this together with links between databases, to
keep the enterprise running 7x24x365 making it intolerant of down-time. Its
security requirements increase as do lots of other requirements.
Few companies with 100 or 1000 employees (once again not all) have the security
requirements of a Boeing or AT&T. Few small companies can incur the costs and
damages of a larger company if a server is off-line for 2 hours or 2 days. And
on and on and on. A downed line-of-business system in a large company can cost
the company more than one million dollars an hour. Which makes the cost of
Oracle, Solaris, and a decent DBA pretty cheap at the end of the day.
So it is not a cockamamie definition. If Access could do the job, and it can't,
then yes I would call it an enterprise database. But last time I checked
replication was not one of its capabilities.
Daniel A. Morgan
Neil Pike
Just goes to prove that SQL Server needs much less maintenance and people than
Oracle ;-)
I'd be surprised if a company the size of Dell didn't use both. I'd also not
be surprised if they also use Access and DB/2 extensively.
> Dell is currently advertising for 6 positions with Oracle experience, all in
> internal system support. There are no SQL Server positions being advertised
> that I could find - who is looking after Dell.com ?
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Jesus Manuel NAVARRO LOPEZ
"Dr. Mueller" wrote:
>
>
> My needs? Fairly simple actually. To be fast, easy to configure, good
> tools to edit records/create tables, etc. I'm not sure which one would suit
> what I want to do, but I want something that's fairly easy to setup and use.
> Good documentation with the product would be a must.
>
> **** I might grab the EE version of Oracle, and an Evaluation version of SQL
> Server 2000 - just to get a feel of them. ****
>
NOW!!!! You have picked the point
--
SALUD,
Jesús
***
jesus_...@geocities.com
***