| From: | Geoff Muldoon <geoff(dot)muldoon(at)trap(dot)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Which SQL is the best for servers? |
| Date: | 2009-02-17 00:29:23 |
| Message-ID: | MPG.2404afeb4fe4f0bf98971a@news.x-privat.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
In article <gncr90$61p$1(at)news(dot)motzarella(dot)org>, Jerry Stuckle says...
> Geoff Muldoon wrote:
> > Jerry Stuckle says...
> >> pg wrote:
> >
> >>> The server would run Linux or one of the BSD variant
> >
> >> You also missed DB2, SQL Server and several others.
> >
> > Scrap MSSQL Server as a candidate given the above O/S requirement.
> >
> > Geoff M
> >
> > Running 3 RHEL4 boxes in an Oracle RAC cluster, with web interfaces
> > (RHEL5/Apache/php) on separate VMWare ESX gear.
>
> The OS should be picked based on the requirements of the database and
> rest of the system, not vice versa.
In an ideal world, yes.
> I'm not saying I'm recommending SQL Server (or any other RDBMS for that
> matter). But determining the hardware and OS before the rest of the
> requirements are determined places artificial limits on the rest of the
> system.
My comments were simply based on the OPs restriction on O/S. There may be
valid non-ideal-world reasons for that restriction.
Geoff M
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Terry Dykstra | 2009-02-17 00:31:11 | Re: Which SQL is the best for servers? |
| Previous Message | Jerry Stuckle | 2009-02-16 23:01:51 | Re: Which SQL is the best for servers? |