Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: alydar who wrote (63098)	11/16/2001 12:20:18 PM
From: DiViT	Respond to of 74651

Your original post said nothing about clusters. You said and I quote: "msft's sql does not even scale enough to be tested". Your intent with that post can be interpreted as inflammatory, misleading and obviously wrong. Are you now changing your assertion and saying that SQL can not run in a clustered configuration?

To: alydar who wrote (63098)	11/16/2001 1:52:25 PM
From: David Howe	Respond to of 74651

Rocky, Try to disregard performance comparisons if you want. Try to disregard pricing comparisons if you want. But, you should pay attention to sales trends. In the past year, ORCL database sales have fallen 8% and MSFT database sales have increased 30%. Dave

To: alydar who wrote (63098)	11/16/2001 4:16:09 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

rocky - You're completely full of crap about ORCL. Far from having unlimited scalability, ORCL has negative scale going from one node to two. That's right, the cluster overhead is greater than the gain from adding a second node. Then you start to pick up, but the sweet spot is four nodes, and it starts to roll back down. By the time you hit 8 nodes you're done. Why don't you talk about something you know about... you obviously know nothing about databases beyond ORCL press releases. BTW I worked on the cluster transports for ORCL so I know the strengths and weaknesses of their configuration.