dbTalk Databases Forums  

How would you answer?

microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering


Discuss How would you answer? in the microsoft.public.sqlserver.clustering forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old   
Richard Douglass
 
Posts: n/a

Default How would you answer? - 05-18-2005 , 05:46 PM






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



Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old   
Mike Epprecht \(SQL MVP\)
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: How would you answer? - 05-18-2005 , 06:20 PM






http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluat...phalisting.asp,
especially the NASDAQ one.

www.tpc.org

700'000 tpm fast enough?

It's not a case of if your DB server can handle the load, but a case of if
your software is capable of pushing it there. Ask your software vendor if
they can push SQL, Oracle, DB2 or Sybase it it's limits. They will look at
you stupid and not have an answer.

SAP is capable, and I have seen no other software able to do it.
--------------------------------
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland

IM: mike (AT) epprecht (DOT) net

MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp

Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/

"Richard Douglass" <RichardD (AT) arisinc (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
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





Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old   
Andrew J. Kelly
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: How would you answer? - 05-19-2005 , 07:59 AM



I have personally worked on systems that did over 1 million trans per minute
on SQL Server and they were not the largest by any means. There are
hundreds of systems out there with a thousand or more users with no problem.
Just look at the links Mike pointed out and browse the SQL Server web site
for lots of white papers and case studies. But don't get confused when you
talk of clustering. Clustering is a hardware failover solution only when it
comes to sql server. These systems I am talking about are mainly single
boxes with anywhere from 4 to 64 processors.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP


"Richard Douglass" <RichardD (AT) arisinc (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
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





Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old   
Geoff N. Hiten
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: How would you answer? - 05-19-2005 , 08:17 AM



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

Quote:
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





Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old   
Kevin3NF
 
Posts: n/a

Default OT: How would you answer? - 05-20-2005 , 08:25 AM



lol...dark side....Star Wars references are so....yesterday ;-)

--
Kevin Hill
President
3NF Consulting

www.3nf-inc.com/NewsGroups.htm

www.DallasDBAs.com/forum - new DB forum for Dallas/Ft. Worth area DBAs.




"Geoff N. Hiten" <sqlcraftsman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
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







Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.