Interbase Vs MS SQL Server 2000 1

[john434]

Hello,

I currently administrate a database for a training provider/college.

We've been running on Interbase for about 2 years and the size of the database has obviously grown over time.

I've just had a conversation with our suppliers and they seem to think that our database is too large to run on Interbase anymore. The database is
currently 375meg and grows everyday.

We're going to have to think about changing from interbase in the not too distant future or start Archiving madly to keep size down. Would you recommend we stay with interbase and have two separate databases (current and old) or change to Microsoft SQL Server?

Look forward to hearing your views.

Thanks in advance

 

[ecobb]

Personally, I would go with SQL Server. Once you got the database transfered over and running on it, SQL Server could handle it without even blinking an eye, and you would have very little maintenance. If you go with two separate interbase databases, you are going to have a never-ending chore of constantly having to transfer/purge records to make sure your "current" database doesn't get to big.

Plus, with SQL Server, you will also be able to add any new databases that you may need in the future, and your databases can keep growing without you having to worry about them getting too big (Well, except for running out of hard drive space ).



Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher

 

[john434]

Thanks Ecobb,

Thats what we were thinking. Are you aware of any good training providers with regards SQL server?

I've managed to pick up SQL reasonably well, but i'm still a little green. Will i require a shed load of training in order to be able to Administrate SQL server or is it possible to Muddle through?

Not that i like to do the latter, but the company i work for are a bit tight with the old purse strings (like most i expect).

SQL server does seem to be the answer to a lot of our problems

Thanks a lot for you post, it's going to add fuel to my arguments with management.

Cheers mate much appreciated

 

[SQLSister]

SQL server is fairly simple to administer as far as large relational databases go. Pick up a good boook on it and you will be fine. Anything really unusual comes up, the SQL Server ADministration Forum, forum962, is pretty good at helping figure out the problem.

The Following FAQ will help you find some good reference books:
Useful Reference Books for SQL Server Professionals faq183-3324

Since your provideres are suggesting SQL Server, then I presume there will be no problem with the conversion of the front end interface to use T-SQL programming language.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874

 

[terosoft]

IF you get used to Interbase, I recommend you to check the Firebird project first. It's a enhanced open source version of Interbase 6, but far better now that have little to envy to M$SQL if you aren't a very large enterprise.
The the main sites are

http://www.firebirdsql.org/

and

http://sourceforge.net/projects/firebird

You can also get info at

http://www.ibphoenix.com/

Gerardo Czajkowski

 

[johnherman]

SQL Server should be able to handle your volumes and is easier to administer than Oracle or DB2. Less expensive, too.

-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that noboby appreciates how difficult it was.
- Steven Wright

 

[svanels]

The database is running for two years, currently 375 Mb, that means about 0.5 Mb a day. Maybe you should check the structure of your database. Do you have redundant data, are you storing pictures, files or movies inside? Interbase is a very strong RDBMS (comparable to SQL-server). Talking to suppliers is sometimes not the best thing to do, they want to sell.

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[pweegar]

Why is your vendor suggesting you need to change? From what you posted, a 375 MB db should NOT be a large database.

I would contact Borland directly and see if I couldn't get some specs on Interbase, and/or what it would take to update to the latest version (7.1? according to the Borland website).

Sounds like your vendor is trying to get more money from you. AND if that's the case, it's time too have a serious discussion with them as to the why and what for's.

Something else you'll have to consider is the amount of down time you will be looking at to do the conversions. Who will create the new databas(s), tables, etc. And if your vendor is going to do it, what kind of fees are involved?

I'd take a real hard look at the motivations of your vendor before I decide what to do. And take a look at the latest verion of Interbase that Borland has to offer (including support for "Virtual" multi processors (Pent 4's with HT or Xeon processors).

 

[harebrain]

I awarded pweegar a star for his/her response. My first impression was also that Interbase is entirely capable in this situation. I'm skeptical of all the posts that pimp the move to SQL Server: if you read the SQL Server forums, you'll see that some of these folks are big dogs there.

Often times, the real reason (not justification) for making or recommending a platform change is that the new platform is the only thing the recommending party knows. (This is unethical, but that's another story.) Your job is to determine if that is the case.

Get a second opinion on your system, this time from somebody who knows Interbase. Sure, it'll cost you, but it could turn out to be a whole lot cheaper than an unnecessary database migration.

 

[ecobb]

if you read the SQL Server forums, you'll see that some of these folks are big dogs there.

Would you rather take advice from someone that didn't know what they were talking about?

If you look at the original post, john434 asked for opinions on having to deal with 1 SQL Server database vs. 2 separate Interbase databases, not which database platform is better.



Hope This Helps!

Ecobb

"My work is a game, a very serious game." - M.C. Escher

 

[SQLSister]

harebrain, just because we are known on the SQL Server boards doesn't invalidate the information we gave. He wanted some information on SQL Server. I don't know anything about Interbase, so I don't know if it was really running out of room. I didn't tell him he should definitely switch databases, just provided some information he asked for. You know it's not like I get a commision if he buys the product.

And for the record I am nobody's 'big dog'. Truly that was offensive. I don't know, maybe guys aren't offended by being called a dog, but I assure you that women certainly are.

Questions about posting. See faq183-874

 

[johnherman]

I, too, take offense at the harebrain remarks. I have direct experience with Interbase, SQL Server, Sybase, Oracle, and DB2 (and others).

But I do agree with pweegar that contact with Borland is indicated.

-------------------------
The trouble with doing something right the first time is that noboby appreciates how difficult it was.
- Steven Wright

 

[harebrain]

Oops. No offense was intended, and upon reading my previous post, I can see how it could be construed that way as there was some harsh language.

The second paragraph in particular was meant to refer to the supplier, not to any of the forum participants.

I do not question the validity of the opinions given by the forum participants with respect to SQL Server. However, I do question that a valid solution has been proposed by the supplier. Until pweegar's reply, no one took issue with the conclusion that migration was the answer.

What I would like to have seen, and finally applauded, was (a) some balance in the arguments, and (b) an objective review of the conclusion that the original poster had been presented with. Sometimes it is better to answer the question that should have been asked rather than the one that was asked.