|
> From: Brad Jensen > > > > As to SQL Server, have you tried running a hundred users on a > > hundred million record database on it? > > Well, actually most users don't have those constraints. Who do you consider a user? Dottie's Flower Shop? Or the local flower distributor? Dottie's can use Microsoft, but the distributor is going to need something a little more powerful. > While I haven't tried that performance load, there are commercial > web servers that are doing that and more. > SQL Server has really grown up in the last few years. Of > course, you can put in on a multiprocessor PC server with 20 > GB of RAM, a couple of hundred GB of disk. And get some rather > nice performance from it. It think you can share the database > load thru multiple servers, also, but don't quote me on that. > > Web applications can be written on Windows to run on server farms. > Add another blade server and increase your capacity. Relative cheap, > and very small footprint. These are AWFULLY glib statements. Exactly how many businesses do you personally know running their mission critical systems on Windows server farms? And if by chance you do know of one, how much do they spend on: 1. Performance tuning 2. System administration 3. Backup and redundancy This is NOT a cheap solution, except for the initial price, which is what everybody seems to be using as the standard. I just watched a simple bulletin board pony up for $1100 worth of hardware simply to keep up with demand. Cheap? Not for the work it's doing. All it's doing is keeping track of text messages, fer gosh sakes! I'd hate to see how much a real transaction server would cost. > For the user the consultant was speaking of, the issue is the speed > of the database, while available to that user to manipulate. > > It's the latter half of the equation that is important to most people > now days. This is pure unadulterated crap. The reason the users need to manipulate their data is because we the programmers can't be bothered to do it. We've all gotten fat and lazy and told the users to use SQL and leave us alone. And boy are we sowing what we reap. And then we complain about how there's no business! And what kills me is that some of the biggest complainers are the ones who want a pushbutton WYSIWYG interface to develop applications without having to actually WRITE ANY CODE. Man, once it gets that easy, programmers provide no value add. And if users are willing to live with bloated, unsecured applications just because we're too lazy to write killer applications, then we deserve exactly what we're getting. This ain't about the box, folks, it's about whether you as a consultant provide any added value to your customers. If they can build SQL applications as good as what you can provide using a real HLL, then maybe it's just evolution in action. Joe
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.