These numbers are fun to talk about, but really, the software capabilities on both accounts far exceed the reasonable functionality of today's typical hardware. Consider a circumstance of an HP-UX server with vxfs, I wouldn't want a 128 GB filesystem, much less a single 128 GB datafile (and forget about backing up petabytes of data, Veritas, a 40+ unit tape library with Ultrium drives and gigabit network struggle with the 4 or 5 TBs we have today).
- Original Message -----
From: Jacques Kilchoer
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 6:23 PM
Subject: sql server 2000 and Oracle 10.1 - it's not the size of the database that matters, it's how you use it
Whilst writing up a document contrasting SQL Server object storage versus Oracle object storage, I was suprised to find out that
- according to documentation, the maximum size of a SQL Server database (1 EB) is orders of magnitude greater than the maximum size of an Oracle database (8 PB for a 32 KB blocksize database if I read the documentation correctly); also a SQL serve datafile can be up to 32 TB and an Oracle datafile is limited to 128 GB (in a 32 KB blocksize database). And since there can be up to 32,767 databases per SQL Server instance, a SQL Server instance can have 32,767 EB = 32 ZB of data?
- The maximum size of an Oracle database hasn't changed from version 9.2
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ:
http://www.orafaq.com
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at
http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
Received on Thu Jun 10 2004 - 22:18:36 CDT
