Re: Here comes the Database "TREASURE CHEST"

Tony Scandora 630-252-7541 wrote in message <6chpd5$san@milo.mcs.anl.gov>... >In article <34EB207F.398F@frm.com>, neutrino@frm.com writes: >>7. Linux on multi-processors scales much much better than windows NT >> and it never crashes!! See the article at this site: >> http://www.redhat.com > >It never crashes? Since when? Linux is actually one of the most stable OSes around, though never is quite a long time ;) >>8. Only LINUX could withstand the "CRASH-OS" stress testing >> and the following failed - NT, Windows 95. > >Windows 95, which was designed to run real mode DOS drivers and .EXE >files, should not be expected to pass any stress test. NT, on the >other hand, was designed from the ground up to be robust. Its first >releases were pretty shaky, but its design mistakes and bugs are being >fixed. Don't forget that early releases of Linux weren't too reliable, >either. NT is fairly stable but I can still crash it on a very regular basis. In fact, the most reliable way to crash an NT system is to run other microsoft apps on it. >SQL Server is cheap, but does page, not row >locking, does not support a good deal of the 1992 ANSI spec, has a >very stupid query optimizer, and is easily crashed. Depends. SQL server does (or can do) row locking in certain situations now -- inserts I think? and the next release will support row locking fully. A caveat: you don't always want to escalate to row-level locking and generally want to start with page locks. There are tons of performance and memory issues with row locking. As far as your other three points, I agree. >As database downtime and unreliability get ever more expensive in >today's economy, the cost of doing business with IBM and Oracle gets >ever more justified. We have heard that SQL Server 7, with its rumored >release date once again moved later, is much better than the current >version. And I will consider moveing to it after about the third patch. We moved to SQL6.5 shortly after it wass released and had tons of problems (as well as very frequent crashes) until MS released sp3 for it. To top it off, MS didn't even believe us when we told them of the problems we were having until months later other people started to report the same things. Thanks Microsoft :P. >Linux is a popular web server because Apache is an outstanding product >that runs on Linux. Linux will not become a serious database server >unless PostgreSQL or some other product gains some considerable >maturity. The OS is good. It's a much cheaper UNIX solution than any of the commercial versions. I hope it continues to gain popularity. >>11. Last POINT is - If you DO NOT know linux than you will be >> considered computer ILLITERATE !!!! So do not sit in dark! Do not know Liunux or unix? Linux is just a public implementation of unix -- not some proprietary OS. As far as being in the dark -- how many real-world companies really use Linux? Maybe some ISPs and the like, but that's about it at the moment. And as far as being computer illiterate -- big threat. I could say "if you do not know forth, dylan, and ADA you are programming language illiterate" but who would I be fooling? -Sean