Choosing the right OS + Microsoft SQL version ?

examiz

Choosing the right OS + Microsoft SQL ver

OS:
What is preferable? Installing mssql server on windows 2000 or 2003?
What will give me higher speed and better stability?

MSSQL :

Should I go for the enterprise or standard version?
What are the differences?

My setup:

Server one (P4 2.8 + 1 gig RAM + raid SATA) running Linux RH 9.0 + php
Connecting to MSSQL server running on (dual Xeon 2.4 + 2 gig RAM + SCSI raid)

What are my consideration regarding licensing and OS configuration and server installation?

Sxooter

Why not choose an enterprise class OS and database:

FreeBSD / Linux with PostgreSQL, Oracle, or DB2???

csn

Linux with PostgreSQL

Yeah, that'd probably be my choice 🙂 (nothing wrong with freebsd - just haven't used it in a long time).

Hey Sxooter- do you think pgsql is in the same league as Oracle, MSSQL, and DB2? Pretty much IMO, but I guess those other dbs throw in slick GUIs (which are also available for pgsql), data warehousing stuff, replication, ...

Sxooter

I rank them thusly:

Oracle
PostgreSQL
DB2
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
MS SQL

Most of the testing done by the folks on the pgsql mailing lists has shown that on similar hardware, PostgreSQL comes within 10 to 20% of Oracle's performance under heavy parallel load, beats it in a few areas, and loses in a few others.

Really, other than not having a built-in replication or PITR system, pgsql is a match for Oracle or DB2 for most applications.

MS SQL server is still not capable of scaling as well under heavy parallel load as either of the other three. I.e. it has a tendency to implode under heavy parallel access in such a way as to make me most uncomfortable using it for critical business applications.

csn

There was a study in eweek a while - DB2 hit the wall hard at a certain load point.

I think I'd take MSSQL over mysql though 😉.

Roger_Ramjet

As regards W2K v W2003. If you want a stable, reliable server then W2K with service pack 4 is pretty robust. I'm going to wait until ser pack 3 before giving seriouse consideration to migrating our LAN to 2003. In my experience all MS products are in Beta test untill ser pack 3.

The only thing that would force me to consider 2003 would be if the server was creaking under the load. Yes, 2003 outperforms W2K and when it's finished I'll buy it. Until then I'll just buy a faster server.

Roger_Ramjet

Originally posted by csn
There was a study in eweek a while - DB2 hit the wall hard at a certain load point.

I think I'd take MSSQL over mysql though 😉.

Why? (serious question: I'm planning our next generation systems)