June 14, 2011 at 3:04 pm
What makes management suddenly declare a shift away from SQL Server to Oracle?
It seems to be a 'just because' decision.
No reason has been given.
Drat...
June 14, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Maybe you could ask them?
June 14, 2011 at 4:20 pm
I did, but the answer was one of the 'we can't tell you the real reason' answers...
June 14, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Golf Game Sales Deal, probably. Or dirty pictures after that Swedish Skiing Vacation. Or a fast talking salesman who showed biased charts to business people who don't know better. Or...
... could be any number of reasons. If they won't tell you, shrug and move on.
Good luck?
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 14, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Merger with another company? CEO's grandson's neighbor says it works better at his daddy's company? Too many pointed haired bosses? New CIO comming onboard who just came from an Oracle shop and wants to bring in his people?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Full Links:
KB Article from Microsoft on how to ask a question on a Forum
June 14, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Vendor promised CIO 10% kickback on license purchases.
Decided it would be easier to find qualified Oracle DBAs and developers than SQL Server DBAs and developers.
IT summer intern said it was better.
Couldn't find a better way to spend all the money left in this years IT budget.
Someone told the CEO that all of the problems with applications would go away if they switched to Oracle.
Actually need a feature the Oracle has that SQL Server doesn't. ( just kidding, decisions like that are never made for practical reasons :laugh: )
June 14, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Michael Valentine Jones (6/14/2011)
Actually need a feature the Oracle has that SQL Server doesn't. ( just kidding, decisions like that are never made for practical reasons :laugh: )
LOL, thanks Michael, I needed a laugh today. That'd be like telling me the CIO looked into physical versus virtual addressing speeds and found the Oracle's throughput to be better off for their most likely access methods... Yeah, sure he did.
Another possible reason: "I spoke with my 90 year old mother and she said Oracle was a great product. She'd heard so on the radio."
Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.
For better assistance in answering your questions[/url] | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions.[/url] |Tally Tables[/url]
Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
June 14, 2011 at 6:43 pm
My guess would be "Absolute stupidity". 😛 They have no idea about the paradigm shifts necessary to do such a thing nor how much it's going to cost them in both the short term or the long run. SQL is not SQL and they're about to find out that true portability is an absolute myth especially when it comes to batch code. :sick:
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 15, 2011 at 12:03 am
It makes no sense from a technology standpoint.
Why force a change where the entire dev team has years of experience with squeezing every ounce of performance out of SQL Server to another RDBMS that no one on the team has really touched?
Something very fishy is going on.
Want to see an entire dev team scramble?
Change the RDBMS and not tell truthfully why the change is necessary.
What I have heard from sources close to the change is that SQL Server doesn't have the HA capabilities, nor can it scale enough to meet the demands required from it. I wonder if they took into consideration that our system scales out extremely well and that we have tuned our production clusters to the point where every request is handled in milliseconds and at peak load CPU utilization on those machines sits around 8%.
Oh well...
June 15, 2011 at 6:28 am
j.a.c (6/15/2011)
What I have heard from sources close to the change is that SQL Server doesn't have the HA capabilities, nor can it scale enough to meet the demands required from it.
hehe... that's funny.
...
...
Oh, wait. Was that the real reason? The only thing Oracle has over SQL is load balancing through RAC. SQL is so good, it doesn't need that!!!!(oh burrrn!)
Kinda sad. I use to hear that all the time from Oracle DBAs. "SQL is usually something management hears is easy to use because anyone can set up a SQL database. Eventually management realizes that Oracle is better and switches. So it's better to be an Oracle DBA."
Each is good, but it is super time consuming($$$$) to go from one to another. Especially when the applications/environments have been established for a while.
I have a friend who isn't really a developer but is just playing the role as one. Their company is migrating from Access to SQL Server 2005. Then they plan to go from SQL Server 2005 to Oracle. No clue why. They don't know why. Management probably saw ORACLE on a biplane and thought "coooool."
oh well. sorry mang.
June 23, 2011 at 12:51 am
they think Oracle is more powerful and easy to use?:doze:
---------------------------------------
Quickly Recover Windows Password,Make Life Better!
June 24, 2011 at 5:53 am
They must have a lot of money because Oracle licensing and support is much higher than SQL Server.
You better brush up on writing cursors!
June 28, 2011 at 11:04 am
Are you also moving from Windows to Linux?
June 30, 2011 at 3:07 pm
I think they are going with Solaris...
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply