VC Database MS SQL vs Oracle

[brwelch]

We are preparing to install a our first Virtual Center v2.5 instance and would like to use a remote database. We have established MS SQL 2005 and Oracle 10g services, so is there a compelling reason for one over the other from the VMware standpoint? Does one perform or scale better? Again from the VMware standpoint, is one easier to administer over the other? I have been reading through threads and it appears there are more Oracle 10g issues than MS SQL, but that could simply be perception.

Thanks for the feedback.

[malaysiavm]

My experience is, the oracle will have some weird issue require troubleshooting. Keep in on SQL is the most cost and effective solution which require minimal management to keep it running. I believe Oracle is good products, but I do not think it is worth to run the VC database on oracle.

Malaysia VMware Communities -

[mcowger]

We tried both MSSQL and Oracle, and found everything worked better and faster on oracle.

Of course, we are an oracle shop with and oracle site license, so cost was not an issue, and have a ton of really great oracle DBAs....

--Matt

[azn2kew]

Exactly, depends on your DBA preferences, if your shops is Oracle environment then there is no sense to use MS SQL, but if you have both in the mix, I think to start with SQL 2005 is straight forward and less technical administrative needs. We have both Oracle and MS SQL, but decided to use MS SQL instead because Oracle folks never play well with MS SQL folks so you know how it works. Both products performs great no questions about it but Oracle is much for hardcore database applications rather than small VC database type.

If you found this information useful, please consider awarding points for "Correct" or "Helpful". Thanks!!!

Regards,

Stefan Nguyen

iGeek Systems Inc.

VMware, Citrix, Microsoft Consultant

[brwelch]

Thank you for your feedback. We had pretty much come to the conclusion to use MS SQL, but we wanted to make sure there was not a compelling reason to use Oracle that we were missing.

[RParker]

You know it really comes down to preference. Myself I am NOT convinced Oracle is any better, in fact I pretty have to challenge the fact that Oracle is better than SQL for speed. For one major reason, Microsoft runs their ENTIRE company on SQL. So maybe earlier versions of SQL (2000 and previous) were slower.. but 2005 is MUCH better, and there are websites that basically say you cannot tell the difference.

SQL 2005 is MUCH easier and simpler to setup. If you are doing it without the aid of a DBA, maybe you wouldn't think so, but MS Products are easier than most products, and Oracle is just a major hassle.

SQL 2005 will be fine. Oracle MIGHT (and still not convinced of this) be faster for VERY large (10's of millions of records) than SQL, but even that I am going to challenge.

Everyone forgets that MS is a really big company as far as employees and they do (contrary to popular opinion) use their own products to run a company. So if their 20,000 employees plus users test SQL each and every day, I am pretty sure it's up to the task.

It's what you are comfortable with. But VC will never get large enough to matter what kind of DB you use anyway, so it's whatever you find is the easiest and most useful for you.

[mikepodoherty]

Both Oralce and SQL work. We use both to support VirtualCenter. The team that supports Oracle has VC tied to Oracle and the team that supports WIndows used MS SQL. The key is what your team is most comfortable using.