7 ms·
SQL Server 2008 and upwards are incredibly solid, we use it extensive at my current work place doing telecoms stuff and have very few issues. It's not what I w
by EwanToo 14y ago
SQL Server 2008 and upwards are incredibly solid, we use it extensive at my current work place doing telecoms stuff and have very few issues.
It's not what I would have picked (I come from a Linux and Oracle background), but I've been very impressed.
- ams6110 14y agoAgree. TSQL is painful compared to pl/sql. But SQL Server has always been solid in my experience. That may be because it came from outside Microsoft (Sybase) but by now I'm not sure how much of the original implementation is still in the product.
- Toshio 14y agoCare to say how big your database is, and what your workload looks like (reads vs. writes)?
- EwanToo 14y agoToshio, your comment below is [dead] so I can't reply, but the databases vary from 10's of GB to multi-TB depending on their use. The DBs are often very write intensive on the master, with as much reading as possible done on slave databases, with tables heavily normalised to try and reduce the disk performance hit. Most of the extremes of the setup are there for legacy performance reasons - The newer systems using SQL Server 2008 or 2012 and SSD drives generally don't need it, and we're moving towards a less normalised setup.
- Toshio 14y agoEwanToo, that is very interesting. Also, since the entire discussion started by me questioning the reliability of sql server, can you say how many days your database server stays up between reboots?
- EwanToo 14y agoIt would certainly be months or years, depending on patches really rather than an outage.