Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Oracle Vs. SQL Server on NT
Malcolm Blackhall wrote in message <35156EA8.E32AD3B6_at_midtown.net>...
>Microsoft offers excellent technical support, i.e. Premier Support.
Well you definetely need a LOT of support to twiggle around those "fixed"
bugs that
reappear as "fixed" in the SERVICEPACK++ like the "table lock" bug.
>I have about 20 quad-processor SQL Server systems running under NT. They
don't
>have to be rebooted much at all.
We've using Oracle databases (on SUN and VAX) that has no need to be
rebooted since NT 4.0 was
officially released, whereas ALL of our MS-SQL Server databases (and thats a
couple
more than your 20 Servers) need some - lets say - "assistance" once a week.
>SQL Server installation is no more difficult than Oracle, just take the
defaults
>if you don't care.
That's right, if you wanna go with a "simple" databases you are setting up
MS-SQL in about an hour
and don't need to care about "settings", but it is AKWARD if you want to
have such kind of "parralel
server" or even "hot standby".
>Of course, some of the questions it asks you might actually
>be relevant to configuring your system, like what kind of network support
you
>want. SQL Server also has an excellent administration tool called
Enterprise
>Manager.
Geee, "excellent" ???? That's nothing but some kind of instance manager, so
I think you should stop
taking about comparison between Oracle and MS-SQL.
Chris
-- Christian J. Bauer - Software Development, Machine Control Group NEXUS informatics GmbH mailto://christian.bauer@nexus-informatics.deReceived on Sun Mar 22 1998 - 00:00:00 CST