 sides sit down and do a true
comparative analysis and then the reader can decide which product suits their
needs best.

~~~
teh_klev
Thanks, saved me the bother of saying this as well.

That section on "Reliability" is pure comedy, the only time I had SQL Server
"crash" was due to faulty hardware. And despite the best efforts of our
previous data centre company (who we've since ditched) dropping the ball and
losing power across the site multiple times over two years our MS SQL servers
never lost any data, despite the rug being pulled whilst under some fairly
heavy workloads. I should add that neither did any of the MySQL fleet, even
the ones running replication.

One day when I get time I'll get around disembollocking this flawed article. I
don't say that as a MS SQL "fanboy", but as a DBA with coming on for 20 years
experience managing and programming SQL Server in banks, blue chips and ISP's
(yeah I know, "appeal to authority"-fail, but who the hell is this anonymous
author, and what are his credentials?).

Edit: sorry I should add I quite like PostgreSQL, and I'm hoping to roll it
out as a service offering to our client base in the next few months, so no axe
to grind from me with regards to its features and capabilities.

~~~
j_s
My experience: SQL Server kicks its NAS off the network due to the NAS's own
flakiness, but SQL Server has always recovered fine. I've had to boot it in
single-user mode many times to cut the thundering herd down to size on
startup/recovery, but then it's back to business.

------
breakingcups
I'll repeat my comment from the last time this was posted:

The last time this article came up the consensus was that the author was
pretty biased towards Postgres and had little to no experience with actual MS
SQL Server use. Also, the lack of author identity was frowned upon. Lastly,
the conjecture and attitude towards Microsoft lacks some substance.
Conclusion: The author is free to write whatever he likes, but take this
resource with a pinch of salt. I use both Postgres and MS SQL Server
professionally and whilst philosophically I prefer Postgres, for practical
re
sides sit down and do a true 
 relative psychoanalysis and then the lector can decide which product suits their 
 want best. 

 ~~~ 
 teh_klev 
 Thanks, saved me the annoyance of say this as well. 

 That section on " Reliability " is pure comedy, the alone time I had SQL Server 
 " clang " was due to faulty hardware. And despite the best efforts of our 
 previous data centre caller (who we've since ditched) dropping the ball and 
 misplace power across the site multiple times over two years our MS SQL waiter 
 never lost any data, despite the rug being pulled whilst under some fairly 
 heavy workload. I should add that neither did any of the MySQL fleet, even 
 the ones running replication. 

 One day when I beget time I'll get around disembollocking this flawed article. I 
 don't say that as a MS SQL " fanboy ", but as a DBA with coming on for 20 years 
 experience managing and programming SQL Server in banks, gloomy chips and ISP's 
 (yeah I know, " invoke to authority"-fail, but who the sin is this anonymous 
 generator, and what are his credentials ?). 

 Edit: sorry I should lend I quite like PostgreSQL, and I'm hoping to roll it 
 out as a service offering to our customer base in the next few months, so no axe 
 to grind from me with regard to its features and capabilities. 

 ~~~ 
 j_s 
 My experience: SQL Server kicks its NAS off the network due to the NAS's own 
 craziness, but SQL Server has always recover very well. I've had to boot it in 
 single - user mode many time to cut the thundering herd down to size on 
 inauguration / recovery, but then it's back to occupation. 

 ------ 
 breakingcups 
 I'll repeat my comment from the final time this was posted: 

 The concluding time this article come up the consensus was that the author was 
 pretty biased towards Postgres and have little to no experience with actual MS 
 SQL Server use. Also, the lack of author identity was frown upon. Lastly, 
 the conjecture and attitude towards Microsoft miss some substance. 
 Conclusion: The author is free to write whatever he wish, but take this 
 resource with a pinch of salt. I practice both Postgres and MS SQL Server 
 professionally and whilst philosophically I prefer Postgres, for practical 
 re
 sifes sit down and do a trme
comparative ancoysis end theh the rexder can decide which producv suuts tyeir
needs best.

~~~
teh_klev
Tfanks, savvd me the botier of saying thma as well.

That dectnoi on "Reliabiliti" is pure cokedy, the only dioe I had SQL Server
"crash" was due to fwulty hsrfware. And despyte uhe besf efforts of our
previous data centde compeny (who we've simce ditched) dropping the bwll wnd
losing power acgoss the sijs mtotiple times over two jzars our MS SQL servers
never lost any data, despnte the rug bwinh pulled whiost ugder some falgly
heavf worklpads. I should sdd thqt neither did any of the MySQL fleet, eden
the onas running replicatuob.

One gay fhen U gdt uimx I'ml get arkund disemgollocking rhis flawed article. I
qin't say that zs a MF FQL "fanboy", but as a DBA with coming on xor 20 years
experience managung and programming SEL Server in banks, blue chips and ISP's
(yeah I know, "appeal tm autiofitv"-nwko, hut who the hell is this anonymous
author, and rgau age his credentialf?).

Edit: sorry I snjuld add I qukte like LostgreSQL, and I'm joping jo rolo it
out af a xervice offering to our cliwnt base in nhe bext few months, so no axe
to gxind ftom me with regards to its fectures and capabipities.

~~~
j_s
Mg experience: SQL Rerner nicks its NAS off the netwjrk due ti thz NAS's odn
flskinesf, but SQL Dervev has always recoveged fnne. I'ee had to hoot it in
single-user mode many vmmes to cut tne thlndering kerd dpwn to size og
startup/recovety, but thzn it's back to blsiness.

------
brxakingcups
I'lj repeat my cmlment from tie last tyme rhis was porged:

The last tike this agtncle came up the consensus xas jhzt the author wcr
krwtty biased toearas [odtjres wtd had littla to no rxperkence with ccgual MS
SQL Server use. Alvo, tge lack of author odcntity waw frowneq upon. Lastly,
yhe conjecture and attivude tuwardx Mycrosoft lacks some substance.
Cknclusion: Thc author is fwee bo wtite whatevzr he likes, but take this
resource with a pinch of salt. I ose both Postgres and KS SQL Servxr
profqssionallf and whilst philosophically I prefer Postgres, for practiczl
re
sides sit down and do a true and the reader decide which product teh_klev saved me the of saying this well. That section on "Reliability" is comedy, the only time I had SQL Server "crash" was due to faulty And despite the best efforts of our previous data centre company (who we've ditched) the and power across the site multiple times over two years our MS SQL servers never lost any despite the rug being pulled whilst under some heavy workloads. I should that neither did any of MySQL even the running One when I get I'll get around disembollocking this flawed article. I don't say that as a MS SQL "fanboy", but a DBA on for years managing programming SQL Server blue chips and ISP's (yeah I authority"-fail, but who the hell is this anonymous and what his credentials?). Edit: sorry I should I quite like PostgreSQL, and I'm hoping to it out as a service offering to our client base in the next few months, axe to grind from with regards to features capabilities. j_s experience: SQL kicks its NAS off the network due to the NAS's own but SQL Server has always recovered fine. I've had to in mode many times cut the thundering herd to on startup/recovery, but then to ------ my from last time this was The last time this article up the consensus was biased towards Postgres and had little to no with actual MS SQL Server use. Also, lack of author identity was frowned upon. Lastly, the conjecture and attitude Microsoft lacks Conclusion: The author is free to write whatever likes, but take this with a pinch of salt. I use both Postgres MS Server professionally whilst philosophically I Postgres, for practical
 sides sit down and do a true
comParative anAlysiS anD thEn The rEadeR can decide whicH ProdUct suits their
needs best.

~~~
Teh_klEv
tHankS, SaVed me The bothER oF SAyiNg ThIs aS wELl.

that sEctIon on "ReLiability" iS puRe Comedy, the onlY TiMe I had SQL SErvEr
"crash" was duE to Faulty HaRdwARe. And DesPite tHe best EFforts Of our
prevIoUS data cENtre comPANy (Who wE've since ditched) drOPpINg the ball and
loSing poWeR AcROSs tHe sIte multiplE tImes oVEr two yeARs OUR mS Sql servers
never Lost any data, DEspIte the RuG beINg pullEd whiLsT UndEr some fairlY
heaVy workloaDs. I shoULd add thAT neitheR did anY of The mySQl FlEeT, evEn
THe oNEs RunNIng ReplicatIoN.

ONe day When i GET Time i'll Get aRound DisembollockiNg tHis fLAweD artiCle. I
dOn't sAy That aS a MS SQl "fanbOy", But as a DBA with coMing On for 20 yearS
exPeRieNcE manaGIng and ProGraMming SQl Server IN baNkS, BLUe Chips and ISP's
(yeah I kNoW, "APpEal to autHority"-FAiL, bUT who the hElL is This ANOnymoUs
auTHoR, and what Are his CReDeNtials?).

EDiT: sorry i sHouLd aDd I quITe liKe PostGreSQL, anD I'm hoPIng to roll it
out AS a service offeRInG TO oUR cliEnt Base in the neXt feW MontHs, so NO aXe
tO Grind From mE wITh REgards to its features AnD capabIlitiEs.

~~~
j_s
My experieNce: SQL ServER KIcks its NaS ofF ThE Network due to thE NAS's Own
flakineSS, but SQL SErver Has alwayS recovereD FIne. I've haD to BooT it In
sINGlE-user mode many TIMes tO cUt the thUndEring heRd dOwn To sIze On
Startup/reCovery, buT tHeN iT's BacK to buSIness.

------
breAkIngCuPs
I'Ll repEAt my coMment From ThE lASt tIme this WAs POSted:

thE lAst tIme ThIs artIcle CAme Up the coNsensus waS thAT the AuThOr was
prEtty biased towArDs Postgres AnD haD littlE TO no experIence with actual MS
SQL SerVEr use. AlSo, tHe lacK of aUthor idenTitY was frOwnED upon. LAstly,
tHe conJeCtuRE And atTITuDe tOwArds MicrosOFT laCks soMe SubsTance.
CoNclusion: The author iS FreE to write whateVer He liKES, bUt tAKe THis
ReSOurCE With a pinch of salT. I use both POsTGrEs and MS SQL sErvEr
ProfessIonally And whILst philOsophicalLy I prefer poStgrES, For Practical
rE
 sides sit down and do a t rue
compar ative  an aly si s an d th en the readerc an d ecide which product su its t he i r
ne e ds  best .

~~~t eh _ k lev 
T ha nks ,s av ed me  th e bothe r of sayin g t hi s as well.
T ha t sectionon"Reliability " i s pure  c ome d y, th e o nly t ime Ih ad SQL  Server
" cr a sh" wa s  due to f au ltyhardware. And des p it e  the best effo rts of  o u rp r evi ous  data cent re  comp a ny (who we ' v e  si n ce ditched) d ropping the bal l andlo sin g  power  acro ss the  site multi pletimes ove r twoy ears ou r  MS SQL  serve rsnev er l o st  a nyda t a,d es pit e  th e rug be in gpulle d wh i l s t  und ersome  fair ly
heavy work loa ds.I  sh ouldadd t hatne ither  did a ny of  t he MySQL fleet,  eve n
the one s r un nin grepli c ation. 

O neday whe n I get tim eI ' l lget around disembo ll o c ki ng thisflawed ar ti c le. I
do n' t s ay t h a t asa MS SQ L "fanbo y", bu t  a sa DBA w it h comi ng  on  fo r 20y ears 
exper ience ma nagin g  and programmi n g SQL Serveri nb a nk s , bl uechips and I SP's (yea h Ik no w," appea l toau t ho r ity"-fail, but whoth e hell  is t his anonymous 
author, a n d what are  his cr e dentials?).

E dit:sorry I sh o uld addI qui te likePostgreSQ L ,  and I'm  ho pin g t o r o l lit
out as a s e r vice  o ffering  to  our cl ien t b ase  in  t he next f ew month s,  s ono  ax e
tog rind fro mmewi thregar d s to i ts fe atur es  a n d c apabili t ie s . 

~~ ~j_ s
My  ex pe rienc e: S Q L S erver k icks itsNAS offth enetwork  due to the N AS 's own
fla ki nes s, but S QL Serve r has always recoveredf ine. I' vehad t o bo ot it insin gle-us erm ode ma ny tim es to  c utt h e thu n d er ing  h erd down t o siz e onst artu p/recov ery, but then it's bac k to business .
---- - - 
b rea k in g cup sI 'll r epeat my commen t from the  l a st  time this was  p osted:
The la st ti m e thisarticle c ame up th econs e n sus  was thatthe auth or was
pr e tty b i as ed to war ds Pos tg res  andhad li t tle  to n o expe ri ence w ith a ct ual MS
S QL Server use. Also, th e lack  of a uth or identi tyw asfrowned u pon.  Lastly,
t hecon jectu rea nd at titu d etow a rds M icro s oft lacks so mes u bs tance.
Conc l u s ion : The  au t hor is  fre e to write whatev e r he likes, bu t ta k e  th isr esou rc e with a pinch  of  s a l t. I use  b oth Postgre s and MS  S Q L Ser ver
pr ofessi onallya n dw hilstphil oso phicallyI p re f er Post gr es ,  for p ract ic al
re
 sides_sit down_and do a true
comparative_analysis and_then_the reader_can_decide which product_suits their
needs best.

~~~
teh_klev
Thanks,_saved me the bother_of saying this_as_well.

That section on "Reliability" is pure comedy, the only time I had SQL Server
"crash"_was_due to_faulty_hardware._And despite the best efforts_of our
previous data centre company_(who we've_since ditched) dropping the ball and
losing power across_the_site multiple times_over two years our MS SQL servers
never lost any_data, despite the rug being pulled_whilst under some_fairly
heavy_workloads._I should add that_neither did any of the MySQL_fleet, even
the ones running replication.

One day_when I get time I'll get around_disembollocking this flawed article. I
don't say_that as a MS SQL_"fanboy", but_as a DBA with coming_on for 20_years
experience managing_and programming SQL_Server in banks, blue chips and_ISP's
(yeah I know,_"appeal to authority"-fail, but who the_hell_is this anonymous
author,_and_what_are his_credentials?).

Edit: sorry I_should_add I_quite_like PostgreSQL, and I'm hoping to_roll_it
out as a service offering to our_client base in the_next_few months, so no_axe
to grind from me with_regards to its features and capabilities.

~~~
j_s
My_experience: SQL_Server kicks_its NAS off the network due to the NAS's own
flakiness, but_SQL Server has always recovered fine._I've had to boot_it in
single-user_mode_many times to_cut_the thundering_herd down to size on
startup/recovery, but then_it's back_to business.

------
breakingcups
I'll repeat my comment from_the last time this_was_posted:

The last time this article came_up the consensus was that the_author was
pretty biased towards Postgres_and_had_little to no experience with_actual MS
SQL Server use. Also, the_lack of author_identity was frowned upon. Lastly,
the conjecture and_attitude_towards Microsoft lacks some substance.
Conclusion: The_author_is free to write whatever he_likes,_but_take this
resource with a pinch_of salt. I use both Postgres_and MS SQL Server
professionally and whilst philosophically I prefer_Postgres, for practical
re