Responding to 'Is Oracle easier to Administer than SQL Server'
 |
(Barry Cohen) The analyst firm that wrote the original report, "Comparative Management Cost Study of Oracle 10g and Microsoft SQL Server 2000," comments upon the editorials and ensuing discussions posted on SSWUG.ORG. |
|
| | Related Articles - For Members.
|
|
Key (Please note):
(R) - registration may be required for access at the target site
($) - target site may require paid membership for access to this or other content
Reader Comments: Post Your Comments/Feedback
RE: Responding to 'Is Oracle easier to Administer than SQL Server'
(posted: 6/1/2004 12:55:24 PM)
You did a good job on the basic stuff. How about studying what effect scaling out would have on management costs. You would have to somehow benchmark SQL Server and Oracle to take into account the fact that Oracle can handle more load than SQL Server before scaling out is needed, and then measure the effect of scaling out itself.
RE: Responding to 'Is Oracle easier to Administer than SQL Server'
(posted: 6/8/2004 10:34:02 AM)
http://www.sswug.org/see/18791 says it all
RE: Responding to 'Is Oracle easier to Administer than SQL Server'
by D bogey (posted: 8/26/2008 6:56:03 AM)
I manage both Oracle 10g and SQL Server 2005 Databases and Both have their strenghts and weaknesses when it comes to administration. Two places that I think that Oracle lags way behind in is the restoring of a backup to another machine and its patching mechanisims.
|
