April 12, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Jeff Moden (4/12/2010)
Bill Kline-270970 (4/12/2010)
I work in a multi db platform environment. We use both SQL Server and Oracle. I'm just a newbie when it comes to Oracle administration, and am mid-level with SQL Server administration.My supervisor, who is a strong administratior in both SQL Server and Oracle, has told me that with Oracle, you can "scale out" by adding more servers to a cluster and Oracle will split the workload between the servers. (If properly configured, of course.) With SQL Server, you are limiting to "scaling up", meaning to handle a larger workload you have to buy hardware that is faster and more powerful.
I'm not a Systems DBA but I believe that SQL Server allows for a thing called "Federated Servers" that does just that.
They do. Has some limitations, and isn't as mature as it really needs to be, but they are catching up.
Virtualization almost eliminates the need for it and the advantages of it. Improving virtualization will make "scale out" on SQL Server a moot point faster than advances in federation will.
- 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
April 12, 2010 at 1:02 pm
GSquared (4/12/2010)
Jeff Moden (4/12/2010)
Bill Kline-270970 (4/12/2010)
I work in a multi db platform environment. We use both SQL Server and Oracle. I'm just a newbie when it comes to Oracle administration, and am mid-level with SQL Server administration.My supervisor, who is a strong administratior in both SQL Server and Oracle, has told me that with Oracle, you can "scale out" by adding more servers to a cluster and Oracle will split the workload between the servers. (If properly configured, of course.) With SQL Server, you are limiting to "scaling up", meaning to handle a larger workload you have to buy hardware that is faster and more powerful.
I'm not a Systems DBA but I believe that SQL Server allows for a thing called "Federated Servers" that does just that.
They do. Has some limitations, and isn't as mature as it really needs to be, but they are catching up.
Virtualization almost eliminates the need for it and the advantages of it. Improving virtualization will make "scale out" on SQL Server a moot point faster than advances in federation will.
Heh... you beat my second thought on the subject. I was thinking "is it really necessary now that VM has matured and is a very viable solution"? Obviously, the answer is no but only up to a point??? What happens when you meet the OS limit on CPUs in VM? Would clustering/federating servers be necessary in a VM environment then?
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
April 12, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Jeff Moden (4/12/2010)
GSquared (4/12/2010)
Virtualization almost eliminates the need for it (federation) and the advantages of it. Improving virtualization will make "scale out" on SQL Server a moot point faster than advances in federation will.
Heh... you beat my second thought on the subject. I was thinking "is it really necessary now that VM has matured and is a very viable solution"? Obviously, the answer is no but only up to a point??? What happens when you meet the OS limit on CPUs in VM? Would clustering/federating servers be necessary in a VM environment then?
Yes, but Datacenter will do 64 CPUs (up to 256 logical processors considering multicore/multithread) and 2 terrabytes of RAM. By the time you hit those limits, you probably have some people onboard who can do skillful federation implementations, or you have the resources to hire a team that can do it for you. Assuming, of course, that a proprietary system built on LAMP wouldn't be better for most companies that need that kind of scale anyway.
- 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
April 12, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Virtualization almost eliminates the need for it and the advantages of it. Improving virtualization will make "scale out" on SQL Server a moot point faster than advances in federation will.
For the benefit of less knowlegeable folks such as myself, could you elaborate or post some links that provide more info on that concept?
April 12, 2010 at 5:10 pm
To the original topic - I think it boils down to a matter of preference and "It Depends." Both are very good platforms and both perform very well when properly configured.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
April 13, 2010 at 6:44 am
CirquedeSQLeil (4/12/2010)
To the original topic - I think it boils down to a matter of preference and "It Depends." Both are very good platforms and both perform very well when properly configured.
Properly configured is a big part of performance.
Microsoft's latest offerings are starting to 'package' hardware and software for the larger volume databases.
Better is the one you have the proper resources for so you are able to get the most out of the platform.
If your supporting crew is more skilled at Oracle or SQL, that would be the best platform.
SQL Express could be the best, if the business requirements are met.:-D
No cost, scalable to 4GB.
Greg E
April 13, 2010 at 8:59 am
The differences between Oracle, Access and SQL have nothing to do with the "amount of data they can handle". The differences between these platforms is largely denominated in terms of feature sets and price.
April 14, 2010 at 6:20 am
Bill Kline-270970 (4/12/2010)
Virtualization almost eliminates the need for it and the advantages of it. Improving virtualization will make "scale out" on SQL Server a moot point faster than advances in federation will.
For the benefit of less knowlegeable folks such as myself, could you elaborate or post some links that provide more info on that concept?
I'm not clear on what you're asking. If you want data on virtualization, there are whole books of material on the subject.
To get a start on the subject, Bing/Google these subjects: Virtualization, Blade Servers, Windows Datacenter Edition
- 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
September 28, 2017 at 7:34 am
Lynn Pettis - Thursday, April 8, 2010 7:40 AMI'll start by asking this, define better.I have not had the opportunity to with Oracle. I have been working with SQL Server since version 6.5. I'd say this, each has their place, just as the numerous OS's that exist.I enjoy working with SQL Server and find it a very stable and well performing platform.
Oracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
September 28, 2017 at 7:41 am
Henrico Bekker - Thursday, April 8, 2010 12:13 AMMS SQL Server is the best. Period.but......if you are an Oracle Dba, Oracle would be the best.Each to his own.This is a question that can only truely be answered with physical test and performance comparisons.My personal opinion is that none is better than the other just because the papers say so.:hehe:
Oracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
September 28, 2017 at 7:43 am
Lynn Pettis - Thursday, April 8, 2010 7:40 AMI'll start by asking this, define better.I have not had the opportunity to with Oracle. I have been working with SQL Server since version 6.5. I'd say this, each has their place, just as the numerous OS's that exist.I enjoy working with SQL Server and find it a very stable and well performing platform.
Oracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
September 28, 2017 at 8:10 am
kannan_egd - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:43 AMOracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
Nice job reviving a 7 year old thread to post the exact same thing three times.
September 28, 2017 at 8:13 am
Luis Cazares - Thursday, September 28, 2017 8:10 AMkannan_egd - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:43 AMOracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
Nice job reviving a 7 year old thread to post the exact same thing three times.
The response and opinion is also based on tech from 7 years ago...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This thing is addressing problems that dont exist. Its solution-ism at its worst. We are dumbing down machines that are inherently superior. - Gilfoyle
September 28, 2017 at 8:59 am
kannan_egd - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:43 AMLynn Pettis - Thursday, April 8, 2010 7:40 AMI'll start by asking this, define better.I have not had the opportunity to with Oracle. I have been working with SQL Server since version 6.5. I'd say this, each has their place, just as the numerous OS's that exist.I enjoy working with SQL Server and find it a very stable and well performing platform.Oracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
Worked with Oracle, prefer SQL Server. Both have their place, strengths and weaknesses. SQL Server has most definitely become an Enterprise Class RDBMS. Can it do everything Oracle does? No, but it doesn't have to either. Plus, SQL Server comes with a lot more tools without adding additional cost, unlike Oracle.
September 28, 2017 at 9:26 am
kannan_egd - Thursday, September 28, 2017 7:34 AMLynn Pettis - Thursday, April 8, 2010 7:40 AMI'll start by asking this, define better.I have not had the opportunity to with Oracle. I have been working with SQL Server since version 6.5. I'd say this, each has their place, just as the numerous OS's that exist.I enjoy working with SQL Server and find it a very stable and well performing platform.Oracle is always best and better than SQL server. When come to data warehouse and large volume data handling i would always prefer oracle is the best choice. SQL server still standing behind oracle and takes years to reach oracle technology because i worked in both databases as a DBA and a developer. If people need real comparison i will post my experiences in points.
I would very much like to see your comparison points since I have worked with SQL since 4.2 and Oracle since version 7.
😎
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 33 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply