[dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

[Jim Lawrence]

You will not find me disagreeing with you.

It is the way the many surveys rate and define MS SQL. MS SQL is the greatest relational database but in its own category...

...But from what I have been told, from local leading edge computer developers, the ratings given MSSQL just doesn't seem to match their usage. Example: there are somewhere between 5 and 15K development companies in the Vancouver area and I have been told that none of them use MS SQL? None of them use MS OS for that matter. I would like to know the truth. Maybe, this is but a little back-eddy district...a small little echo chamber that does not represent the new era business model?  

https://db-engines.com/en/blog_post/54
https://db-engines.com/en/ranking_definition
http://bit.ly/2x7IwaO

Aside: I have that same argument with those that tote Adobe products as the definitive example of graphic applications. When it comes to business graphically applications, Adobe products are looked upon as desktop apps. The main players and products in the world of graphics, like digital mapping, engineering designs, data mapping and animations exist on a whole different vertical. Most of us never see the other programs.

For me, Adobe and MS SQL are just fine but I have already paid for those licences. For any new projects though, I would tend to use what is inexpensive and well supported.
 
Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 3:30:08 PM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux

LOL, no, they certainly do not match the quantity of data just in 
Google, never mind facebook etc.  But those are different applications 
and SQL Server has to this point never tried to deal with that kind of 
disparate data.  And they may never do so. Relational is just different 
from "big data".


On 8/20/2017 3:38 PM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
> Thanks for the links...great reading. MS SQL is definitely in a dominant position in the database market. I personally have two MS SQL DBs, more for fun than business.
>
> Aside: I do not know whether I should trust the Gartner reports as the company is owned by MS. ;-)
>
> I think, even given the number of MS SQL DBs installed, MS SQL does not collectively match the data volume of the super database stores like, AWS, Facebook, Google, the NSA, IBM etc...
>
> This is a slightly dated overview of Google.
> http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/08/01/report-google-uses-about-900000-servers/
>
> Jim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Colby" <jwcolby at gmail.com>
> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 8:40:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>
> https://www.computerprofile.com/analytics-papers/microsoft-sql-server-popular-dbms-system/
>
> http://blog.rdx.com/rdx-2017-top-database-trends-sql-server-on-linux/
>
> http://www.vir.com.vn/gartner-positions-microsoft-as-number-1-in-2016-magic-quadrant.html
>
> https://mspoweruser.com/microsoft-sql-server-another-surprise-hit-microsoft-2016/
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2017/05/30/mongodb-taking-share-from-oracle-in-40-billion-market/#49c976333156
>
>
> On 8/20/2017 12:03 AM, Jim Lawrence wrote:
>> An interesting paradox exists between the type of databases being used and the amount of data being processed.
>>
>> MS SQL is the most popular medium relational DB (35%?) used, but MS SQL only processes a tiny fraction of the data of all networks and the Internet.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
>> To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
>> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:30:24 PM
>> Subject: [dba-SQLServer] SQL Server on Linux
>>
>> I keep trying to wrap my head around this, so far to no avail. Given that:
>>
>> a) none of the largest players in the big-server marketplace use neither
>> Windows nor SQL Server;
>> b) on the next tier down (in terms of number of servers, users, etc.),
>> virtually all players are committed to Linux, and have been for years; not
>> only that, but they have also committed to (Choose one) MySQL, MariaDB or
>> PostGreSQL, with various NoSQL implementations here and there.
>> c) MS intends to charge $ for its Linux implementation; the aforementioned
>> competing products are available for free (of course, if you're going to
>> bet your firm on your database, then you'll be buying support on an annual
>> basis).
>>
>> What market-share does this leave? I can think of some niches here and
>> there:
>>
>> a ) a firm with a mix of Windows Server and Linux servers, trying to
>> rationalize and simplify the layout and consequent maintenance hassles and
>> costs;
>>
>> b) a smallish firm, previously committed to Windows, whose IT people keep
>> touting Linux as providing superior servers; therein lie potential porting
>> opportunities, for both internal IT people and external consultants.
>>
>> After these, I'm out of ideas. Perhaps I'm missing some Big Picture here.
>> If so, would someone on this list kindly clue me in?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Arthur

-- 
John W. Colby

_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com