![]() | |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
| |||
| |||
|
#2
| |||
| |||
|
|
My boss issued a challenge at lunch today: Find out if SQL can cluster to support thousands of end-users with hundreds of thousands of trans per minute, or we start looking at Oracle. What do I say to him? Thanks Richard |
#3
| |||
| |||
|
|
My boss issued a challenge at lunch today: Find out if SQL can cluster to support thousands of end-users with hundreds of thousands of trans per minute, or we start looking at Oracle. What do I say to him? Thanks Richard |
#4
| |||
| |||
|
|
My boss issued a challenge at lunch today: Find out if SQL can cluster to support thousands of end-users with hundreds of thousands of trans per minute, or we start looking at Oracle. What do I say to him? Thanks Richard |
#5
| |||
| |||
|
|
Sounds like you have an Oracle bigot on your hands. His defining the term 'cluster' to match Oracle marketing's definition is a dead giveaway. As Mike and Andrew noted, SQL can match/exceed Oracle on any conceivable database implementation. They will do it differently and if your boss defines "different" as failure, you won't have a chance. Show him the numbers and if he is reasonable, you will have a chance. If he insists that clustering is a bunch of cheap brick computers that scale out, then he has gone over to the dark side. Geoff N. Hiten Microsoft SQL Server MVP "Richard Douglass" <RichardD (AT) arisinc (DOT) com> wrote in message news:eMtFDu$WFHA.2692 (AT) TK2MSFTNGP15 (DOT) phx.gbl... My boss issued a challenge at lunch today: Find out if SQL can cluster to support thousands of end-users with hundreds of thousands of trans per minute, or we start looking at Oracle. What do I say to him? Thanks Richard |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |