SQL 2005 to house largest database in the world

[Rilex]

Apparently Microsoft is entering the "XBOX HUEG" (or is that PS3 HUEG now?) database warehouse at 270TB and a second one at 162TB:

http://www.computerworld.com/action/art...mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=274454

The current largest is 100TB, Yahoo's database running on Oracle. This should dispell any myth WRT SQL's ability to handle very large datasets.

 

[Nothinman]

I don't know anyone that says SQL Server can't scale, it's one of the good things that came out of MS which makes sense because originally it was bought from someone else (Sybase maybe?) =) Although at this point who knows how much of the original code is still there. Most people who say they hate Oracle or SQL server only say that because they only know the other one and the setup, management, etc behind both are pretty different.

 

[Rilex]

Microsoft did buy it from Sybase, but supposedly SQL 2005 is the first version of SQL stripped of all Sybase code.

Honestly, I'd think I'd hate being an Oracle administrator. There are quite a bit of security issues with Oracle (and some with patches which don't correct the issue, others without patches for long standing periods of time). Obviously if you have your internal environment well secured, this can be offset, but having to deal with it in the first place... I see a lot of complaints about Oracle on bugtraq.

 

[stash]

It's Unbreakable (TM)!!!!!

The WoODB should be fun: http://www.argeniss.com/woodb.html

 

[Nothinman]

Yea, the Oracle people do seem pretty bad about security and ironically they're pretty cocky about their 'unbreakable' product too. But I think I'd rather manage an Oracle host over SQL Server just because troubleshooting unix is much easier since the system is more transparent (usually) and the logs are actually useful, unlike the crap in EventViewer.

 

[stash]

I'm not a DBA by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I've seen, the logging in SQL2005 is much improved and more verbose than 2000. Don't know how it compares to Oracle though.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm not a DBA by any stretch of the imagination, but from what I've seen, the logging in SQL2005 is much improved and more verbose than 2000. Don't know how it compares to Oracle though.

Neither am I, I was just speaking about general system level stuff and not anything specific to the databases.

 

[drag]

If your curious how that compares check out this, Winter's Top10.
http://www.wintercorp.com/VLDB/2005_TopTen_Survey/TopTenWinners_2005.asp

There are some interesting details. Notice the difference between DW vs OLTP. OLTP is 'online transaction proccessing' which is actively used databases vs 'dw' which is I am supposing is 'data warehousing' and is going to be mostly static.

Notice how there is a mix in all catagories except for OLTP with "peak workload performance", which is still utterly dominated by mainframes. Although they are slower in CPU vs clusters or large unix machines, but outclass them in I/O speeds by quite a large margin.

Looks like the largest databases on Linux was only 24 terrabytes. I think the largest database publicly known that uses MySQL is for Sabre and that is a few terrabytes big and is just used to storage for data analysis stuff I think. I think the largest PostgreSQL is around a terrabyte.