Обсуждение: Re: Which SQL is the best for servers?
Geoff Muldoon wrote: > In article <gncr90$61p$1@news.motzarella.org>, Jerry Stuckle says... >> Geoff Muldoon wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle says... >>>> pg wrote: >>>>> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant >>>> You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others. >>> Scrap MSSQL Server as a candidate given the above O/S requirement. >>> >>> Geoff M >>> >>> Running 3 RHEL4 boxes in an Oracle RAC cluster, with web interfaces >>> (RHEL5/Apache/php) on separate VMWare ESX gear. >> The OS should be picked based on the requirements of the database and >> rest of the system, not vice versa. > > In an ideal world, yes. > >> I'm not saying I'm recommending SQL Server (or any other RDBMS for that >> matter). But determining the hardware and OS before the rest of the >> requirements are determined places artificial limits on the rest of the >> system. > > My comments were simply based on the OPs restriction on O/S. There may be > valid non-ideal-world reasons for that restriction. > > Geoff M More than just ideal world. The higher the requirements, the more important it is. And he has some pretty high requirements. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
Jerry Stuckle says... > >>>>> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant > >>>> You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others. > >>> Scrap MSSQL Server as a candidate given the above O/S requirement. > >> The OS should be picked based on the requirements of the database and > >> rest of the system, not vice versa. > > > > In an ideal world, yes. > > My comments were simply based on the OPs restriction on O/S. There may be > > valid non-ideal-world reasons for that restriction. > More than just ideal world. The higher the requirements, the more > important it is. And he has some pretty high requirements. No wanting to get into a philosophical argument, but ... Sometimes restrictions are imposed. Hopefully these will NOT conflict with the requirements, and in the OP's case there is still acceptable remaining flexibility of choice. My upcoming project will have the RDBMS mandated. I can live with that, because the option imposed on me can more than comfortably handle the requirements. Is this ideal? No. Are the motives for this imposed restriction reasonable in this case? Yes. Geoff M
Geoff Muldoon wrote: > Jerry Stuckle says... > >>>>>>> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant >>>>>> You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others. >>>>> Scrap MSSQL Server as a candidate given the above O/S requirement. > >>>> The OS should be picked based on the requirements of the database and >>>> rest of the system, not vice versa. >>> In an ideal world, yes. > >>> My comments were simply based on the OPs restriction on O/S. There may be >>> valid non-ideal-world reasons for that restriction. > >> More than just ideal world. The higher the requirements, the more >> important it is. And he has some pretty high requirements. > > No wanting to get into a philosophical argument, but ... > > Sometimes restrictions are imposed. Hopefully these will NOT conflict > with the requirements, and in the OP's case there is still acceptable > remaining flexibility of choice. > > My upcoming project will have the RDBMS mandated. I can live with that, > because the option imposed on me can more than comfortably handle the > requirements. Is this ideal? No. Are the motives for this imposed > restriction reasonable in this case? Yes. > > Geoff M If artificial restrictions which affect the success of the project are imposed, then it's time to get rid of those restrictions. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle JDS Computer Training Corp. jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================