Microsoft has made SQL Server for Linux. Repeat, Microsoft has made SQL Server 2016 for Linux Microsoft has ported its SQL Server software to Linux and has promised to release it in full by next year. From today, the Windows giant, which once likened Linux to cancer, will show off to a lucky few a preview of its SQL database's core engine for the open-source operating system. The full SQL Server 2016 for Linux will be …
Also... Hell just got a whole lot cooler...
Definitely. I just booked an appointment for a pierced eardrum with my GP. The pig squadron from the nearby airbase didn't just take off, they went hypersonic above a residential area. My eardrums still hurt from that....
Looking at the calendar once, twice, thrice - nope it is still not 1st of April.
This post has been deleted by its author
I was almost wetting myself , maybe like yourself.
I mean I can now ditch Postgres and/or MySQL ( okay oracle have probably sodded that up now ) and start paying some money to the Bill Gates retirement fund. I guess the poor so and so probably needs a few bob to buy another private island with airfield, private jets and a nice big harbour for a fleet of yachts.
I like to do my bit for charity, so buying SQL Server on Linux could be my bit for His Holiness William of Gates.
I don't think anyone would want his holiness to have an austere retirement.
So come on ditch postgres and start buying SQL Server on Linux !
For me, oracle because I have more experience with it. I deployed oracle instead of mssql for my vcenter dbs. All of our production shit is mysql. It works fine though instrumentation is a joke.
Maybe I'd consider mssql on linux after a 3 to 5 year track record. In the meantime any db needs to run on linux. I can do windows OK (only one on my team that can). More comfortable with linux of course though.
Scale ?
Not saying that SQL Server can't scale, but it seems to require a deal more effort where the big boys take large scale databases in their stride (which of course can lead to the reverse problem, where using them to manage smaller DB's seems like (and often is) overkill because those systems are built to deal with the really big stuff as the norm, with all the unavoidable scope and complexity in their management tools that this entails).
Depends what you mean by scale. SQL Server scales to large databases much better than either Postgres or MySQL. We have no trouble running SQL Server up to 5TB and one of our suppliers runs it to 10TB for us. In house we move to a clustered db once we get above a few TB.
There are a lot of myths about SQL Server not scaling, they tend to come from someone trying to run a big DB on inappropriate hardware, given proper hardware (i.e. not running everything off of one disc controller) it's fine.
All of our transactional Oracle stuff we've migrated to MySQL or SQL Server, the Oracle fees are just too high.
For most purposes, SQL Server scales fine. I've seen it running just fine in enterprises with something like a thousand concurrent users. Sure, that's by no means the biggest company out there, and it certainly leaves space for Oracle above it - but it is in the top 2% or thereabouts.
No, the real story here is going to be in the small print. This isn't "embrace, extend, extinguish", this is bait and switch. "We're porting SQL Server to Linux! Except if you want all the features, you'll need to switch to Windows Server."
"Oracle and DB2 scales up to System Z which is a magnitude over the max 8 socket PC/Wintel architecture."
Uhmm... NO!
http://www8.hp.com/lamerica_nsc_carib/en/products/integrity-servers/product-detail.html
That can run Windows Server. Scale out is usually the cost effective way to go these days though...
http://www8.hp.com/lamerica_nsc_carib/en/products/integrity-servers/product-detail.html
Agree, the HP Superdome X has solved, or at least mitigated, the scale up problems with Windows and x86 in general. I still say that it is a moot point, world runs on scale out and cluster. Paying a giant multiple for scale up doesn't make much sense as almost all apps cluster now... but if that is what does it for you, go ahead and run SQL on Superdome X. Got that base covered too.
"Oracle and DB2 scales up to System Z which is a magnitude over the max 8 socket PC/Wintel architecture."
Oracle is no longer supported on z/OS. You can run it on zLinux, not a popular option but possible. DB2 does scale well on z. I used to work at IBM and the vast majority of DB2, in general, runs on z. The cost of running DB2 on z/OS is high, but it works well. You can also buy Power boxes which scale up to 32 sockets, which would be the Oracle option (although IBM is getting rid of the scale up systems because of demand). Oracle dings you on software licensing cost if you use Power, but it is way better than anything they have in their Sun portfolio... or, I should say, because it is way better than anything they have.
I wouldn't argue that z is the best scale up platform out there. The issue is that scale up isn't really the way the world works to an increasing extent. Scale up began to go out when the web scale providers told Sun Micro that there was no way they were paying $x million for Unix scale up back in the day and would figure out a way to scale out and cluster PC boards instead... which they did... now you can use a 10,000 socket architecture on an Azure or Amazon cloud and the scale question is moot.
"With sufficient thrust pigs fly just fine"
The serious point is that a lot of SQL Server installs were done by people from a desktop background, who saw nothing wrong with a 500GB database with a 50MB/sec disc subsystem.
Oracle DBAs tended to be more experienced and better at specifying a server. Also Oracle would/do refuse to support inadequate hardware.
You still see the former thinking in some places, btw, with Hadoop clusters based on machines where the IO system is way underspecified for the processing power.
The serious point is that a lot of SQL Server installs were done by people from a desktop background, who saw nothing wrong with a 500GB database with a 50MB/sec disc subsystem.
Another serious point is that many SQL Server installations were done by people who thought they needed an "industry standard" RDBMS but whose database requirements were actually only for a few hundred to a few thousand records (of just a kB or two) in a single table. For that matter I've seen Oracle deployed for smaller datasets ("because we've got a lot of Oracle experience in-house, and our customers will pay for the licences if we tell them they have to").
Sometimes you really do need a huge industrial-strength DBMS, but surprisingly often SQLite will do just fine!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
