August 25, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item A True SQL OS
August 26, 2009 at 6:45 am
I would love to see a core OS install running SQL Server. There are still many times when apps on the SQL Server would be necessary likewise there other reasons to not implement a core only model. It really depends how granular of an implementation a person wantseeds.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx -- "SQL Server 2008 is not supported on Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Server Core installations."
Unfortunately SQL Server 2008 is not compatible with the Windows Server 2008 Core only installation. Maybe it is part of MS long term upgrade strategy.
August 26, 2009 at 7:40 am
Steve,
You say they won't do this due to a loss of revenue from selling fewer Windows licences.
Surely Micro$oft will just charge more for this 'SQL OS' to make up the difference.
Nigel
August 26, 2009 at 7:53 am
I like the idea of a stripped down version of Windows for this purpose more than the idea of SQL Server having to support hardware drivers, Active Directory, booting, internet connectivity (even if just for SQL Server updates to be downloaded), network connectivity (SQL Server doesn't contain the TCP/IP protocols, NIC drivers, etc., because Windows does that for it), and so on.
A version of Windows Server specialized for SQL Server and nothing else might be a good idea. But then Microsoft has to include support, upgrade and new version paths, etc., for it, and that might just add to expenses. If it would be a viable product, then it would be nice.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 26, 2009 at 8:04 am
It is a great Idea! When a automobile company designs a car, or developers design an application. They focus on the capabilities they want to include. Then they can optimize the product to get the best performance. I Liken Installing SQL Server on a server to hitching a trailer on the family car. The trailer works fine and the job gets done, but If you were using the family car and the attached trailer every day, how long would it be before you were wishing you had a truck. The truck could be the perfect size, with a suspension and engine matched to your particular need. Sure it wouldn't do everything the family car did, but it would haul stuff better than the family car. You would probably have both parked in your driveway.
August 26, 2009 at 8:50 am
I like the car analogy!
And I hope they don't start charging more for SQL without Windows, but I wouldn't be surprised.
August 26, 2009 at 9:01 am
Question: How would this effect features of SQL Server which interact with other windows-dependent features such as CLR? I know we've had discussions on this forum as to whether SQL Server really benefits from the addition of CLR, but since it's there, it seems like a lot of Windows functionality is going to be potentially called.
___________________________________________________
“Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.”
August 26, 2009 at 10:45 am
a database / os hybrid? You've just invented an AS/400! 🙂
August 26, 2009 at 10:51 am
"Windows I/O and scheduling could be tuned specifically for SQL Server, or just incorporated into the SQL Server platform."
I'm afraid if you incorporated these into SQL Server you would quickly have the functionality diverge from the base OS source, which could in the long run lead to strange consequences. I've seen code which was copied from a legacy system mutate so fast in the space of the year that the original designer could not figure out why it would no longer work in the new system.
August 26, 2009 at 11:54 am
Robert Hermsen (8/26/2009)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143506.aspx -- "SQL Server 2008 is not supported on Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Server Core installations."Unfortunately SQL Server 2008 is not compatible with the Windows Server 2008 Core only installation. Maybe it is part of MS long term upgrade strategy.
That specifically says "not supported". In MS-ese that is not the same as "not compatible". I'd guess this stems from the fact that .NET is required for SQL to install. Initially, .NET was not supported under Core installations either. But I think this might have changed: http://blogs.technet.com/server_core/archive/2008/12/19/net-3-0-and-3-5-in-windows-server-2008-r2-server-core.aspx
August 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm
I've wondered in the past why MS (or for that matter, Oracle or IBM) hadn't developed a specific "database appliance"--hardware with software specifically built to run just the database software. It seems that the RDBMS war is serious enough to justify that type of decision...
At my last job they were just starting to consider a "DW appliance" from Netezza
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netezza). I guess the DW world got it first due to the massive amounts of data being processed.
And maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Project Madison aimed at making a DW-specific appliance as well?
August 26, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Great idea!
An OS built specifically on and around an embedded enterprise class RDBMS.
Of course Microsoft would be a bit late to the party…say 30 years or so; given that the IBM System/38 was announced in 1978 and delivered in 1979.
The current descendant of the System/38’s operating system, IBM i running on POWER hardware, of course continues to have an integrated RDBMS which is known as IBM DB2 for i. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/software/db2/
-Charles
August 26, 2009 at 12:26 pm
ammo (8/26/2009)
I've wondered in the past why MS (or for that matter, Oracle or IBM) hadn't developed a specific "database appliance"--hardware with software specifically built to run just the database software. It seems that the RDBMS war is serious enough to justify that type of decision...At my last job they were just starting to consider a "DW appliance" from Netezza
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netezza). I guess the DW world got it first due to the massive amounts of data being processed.
And maybe I'm wrong, but isn't Project Madison aimed at making a DW-specific appliance as well?
I've actually heard of custom-built versions of this using Linux and one or another FOSS RDBMS.
There isn't much of a market for it.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
August 26, 2009 at 12:29 pm
IBM's got one....IBM i running on POWER Hardware. ( i is for integrated 😀 )
From 1,2,4 cores with up to 64GB of RAM and 30.6TB of disk
to 64 cores with 4TB of RAM and something like 620TB of disk.
-Charles
ammo (8/26/2009)
I've wondered in the past why MS (or for that matter, Oracle or IBM) hadn't developed a specific "database appliance"--hardware with software specifically built to run just the database software. It seems that the RDBMS war is serious enough to justify that type of decision...
August 26, 2009 at 12:32 pm
When you go to these Microsoft "talks" Steve, do you ever ask the people giving those talks if they have done any research on the ideas they are presenting? Seems like each time we read about something "new" from "inside Microsoft", what we are really hearing are very old ideas, often (like this one) already done. IBM has done this already and did it before there was even a Microsoft Windows on the market.
I think these folks out in Redmond have reached a point where they need a good two semesters (probably more) in a Computing History class. That way, they might, at the very least, have a truly original idea at some point.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 50 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply