Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
darkdusky
Aged Yak Warrior
591 Posts |
 Posted - 2009-01-12 : 06:43:44
|
| I have started working for a company which has mostly Oracle databases but uses SQL Server for the smaller databases. I am trying to convince managers that SQL Server is capable of handling new large systems. Does any-one know the names of some large household name companies which use Sql Server and /or number of Transactions per second which I can use to backup my argument? |
|
|
Lumbago
Norsk Yak Master
3271 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-12 : 07:19:35
|
myspace.com should be big enough I guess?quote:
MySpace runs in a scalable, federated environment using SQL Server™ 2005, Microsoft .NET 2.0, and Microsoft Internet Information Services 6.0 on Windows Server 2003 64-bit editions. Spread across three data centers, MySpace relies on more than 4,000 servers and a storage area network comprising more than 3,000 disks.
-> http://www.microsoft.com/web/content.aspx?id=case-study-myspace- Lumbago |
 |
|
|
LoztInSpace
Aged Yak Warrior
940 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-12 : 07:33:34
|
| Why? What are you trying to achieve by replacing Oracle? Licence cost saving? Training? Support streamlining, increased uptime, improved security?Are you just being a tech evangelist or are you genuinely trying to help? Why not replace the SQL Servers with Oracle databases?You need to appeal to real, quantifiable benefits, backed up with facts and a realistic action plan, not your personal preference. |
|
|
|
darkdusky
Aged Yak Warrior
591 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-12 : 09:09:40
|
| lumbago - cheers for link.Lozt - I appreciate your advice on the other issues - but a large company name will help to focus attention when I am pointing out the lower implementation and administration costs of SQL Server versus Oracle to implement new systems. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large Users of SQL Server