MySQL or MS SQL2000

Anon

We stopped playing and moved around to serieus stuff. We are gonna develop a platform that should at least handle 30.000 (30k !!) unique database sessions concurrent (at one time).

We have 4 double 1 GhZ/ 1 Gig RAM servers.

What do you guys think?

MS and SQLServer: Expensive, "easy" developing (for us), Low TCO
Linux and MySql: Cheap, harder for us to develop, steady and fast..

I would like to know your opinions....and tell me why we should choose the system....

Does anyone knows serious benchmark tests at this level

neuromancer

Microsoft SQL Server 2000 is ownage. thx.

fleymingmasc

SQL Server is the clear winner here, PROVIDED that you are willing to pay (and pay well) a VERY QUALIFIED DBA. I would feel very funny about running such a heavy site on mySQL (even though I love it and support Open Source) -- I would recommend any of the heavy hitters over mySQL for this sort of thing.

As Neuromancer says, MS SQL is 0wnage if you are not willing to get somebody who is dedicated to battening down the hatches. Any Micro$oft platform is going to be full of security problems unless you get someone who actually knows the inner workings, cares about security and reads the newsgroups. Someone who is very careful about keeping up with security updates should be able to maintain your system up and running without getting hacked. The problem is that it's so "easy" to administer MS SQL that folks end up being DBA who have no business doing so.

If it's just another programmer that's going to be administering the database, you might as well go with mySQL.

SQL Server's support of transactions, triggers, foreign keys, stored procedures, user defined types, user functions, views, etc. ought to be points you consider (you could make the same argument for Oracle, Sybase, insert your favorite $$$ vendor here). Also, SQL's data transformation tools are really cool, making it very easy to maintain separate test and production environments, and to sync them up, even across different server machines.

neuromancer

"pay (and pay well) a VERY QUALIFIED DBA"

So your saying I can hire any dumbass to administrate other database servers?

"if you are not willing to get somebody who is dedicated to battening down the hatches. Any Micro$oft platform is going to be full of security problems"

Duh, your saying linux has never had problems? If you don't keep your systems up to date and secure it doesn't matter what your running.

"If it's just another programmer that's going to be administering the database, you might as well go with mySQL"

If this is the case your not serious anyway.

"SQL Server's support of transactions, triggers, foreign keys, stored procedures, user defined types, user functions, views, etc. ought to be points you consider (you could make the same argument for Oracle, Sybase, insert your favorite $$$ vendor here)."

Don't forget XML... XML > You

fleymingmasc

So your saying I can hire any dumbass to administrate other database servers?

I've seen it happen...

Duh, your saying linux has never had problems? If you don't keep your systems up to date and secure it doesn't matter what your running.

True. But Linux has a learning curve that prevents quite as many dumbasses from administering databases. MS products look so easy to use that some PHB might figure he can run it himself.

Anon

Ok, this is getting me somewhere, thnx.

The reason I asked is that our company runs some other projects on MySQL and Linux. The developers hate anything MS. I hired a great developer for this project who is happend to be a certified SQL2000 admin. I know him for many years so I know he is good.

I just need some points to go to managemnet and tell them I need another $20.000 for software.

Any other opinions (MS or Linux) I love to hear them from you....

neuromancer

If your developers hate MSSQL / MS products they are blind, use the right tool for the right job.

I run PHP (4x) on Linux (Redhat 6x) connecting to Windows 2000 and MSSQL 2000.