4 ms·
True, but what people should understand about databases is they're incredibly mature software. They don't fail, they just don't. It's not like the software we'r
by consteval 2y ago
True, but what people should understand about databases is they're incredibly mature software. They don't fail, they just don't. It's not like the software we're used to using where "whoopsie! Something broke!" is common.
I've never, in my life, seen an error in SQL Server related to SQL Server. It's always been me, the app code developer.
Now, to be fair, the server itself or the hardware CAN fail. But having active/passive database configurations is simple, tried and tested.
- skydhash 2y agoAnd the server itself can be very resilient if you run something like debian or freebsd. Even on arch, I've seen things fails rarely unless it's fringe/proprietary code (bluetooth, nvidia, the browser and 3d accelerated graphics,...). That presumes you will use boring tech which are heavily tested by people around the world, not something "new" and "hyped" which is still on 0.x
- consteval 2y agoI agree 100%. Unfortunately my company is pretty tied to windows and windows server, which is a pain. Upgrading and sysadmin-type work is still very manual and there's a lot of room for human error. I wish we would use something like Debian and take advantage of tech like systemd. But alas, we're still using COM and Windows Services and we still need to remote desktop in and click around on random GUIs to get stuff to work. Luckily, SQL Server itself is very stable and reliable. But even SQL Server runs on Linux.