Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MSSQL on Linux – the details

adfinis-sygroup.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 59 posts

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#42

Post by wedowhatwedo »

rodorgas wrote: post #41

Can you configure MSSQL just editing files without a GUI, Unix-style?

You've always been able to do that. Almost all configuration of MSSQL can be done via a script. I can't think of anything that you need to do on a day to day basis that can't be scripted.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#43

Post by dhd415 »

frik wrote: post #36

MS SQL Server database is a very old codebase. It dates back to Sybase SQL Server database (1980). Microsoft licensed and forked Sybase SQL in late 1980s and early 1990s and branded t as MS SQL Server. The strategic manoeuvre to get this database and basically got rid of a major vendor is not uncommon for MSFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Serve... and additional background info: https://en.…

You're misinformed about the nature of the SQL Server codebase. While it was originally licensed from Sybase, all parts of it have been completely re-worked. I read somewhere that they celebrated "zero Sybase day" or something to that effect in the early 2000s to mark the retirement of the last of the original Sybase code. Some more info here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/euanga/2006/01/19/sql-mythb...

As for its performance and features, I have run PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQL Server in production on large workloads and am a big fan of PostgreSQL. That said, I've encountered the fewest sharp edges and disappointments with SQL Server. It is a very respectable RDBMS and it's great that it's now available on Linux.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#44

Post by greggyb »

womitt wrote: post #5

Any valid use cases? No offence, was just wondering why would anybody use it...

Forewarning: This likely sounds like a shill post. I'm okay with that. I work for a Microsoft partner and we're tightly integrated with the MS sellers for a number of products. I am trying to provide an answer to the use cases.

A fully integrated data platform suite with several tools that are best in class. SQL Server is not just a relational database engine, though that is at the core of most tools and services.

SQL Server is a SKU that includes many things:

    * Relational engine
        * In-memory OLTP (SQL compiles to native code)
        * Columnstore indices for OLAP workloads
        * The two above can be combined for real time analytics
    * Embedded R engine in DB
    * SSIS - data processing orchestration tool AND ETL tool
    * SSRS - traditional reporting platform (with native mobile reports)
    * SSAS - best in class OLAP engine/semantic layer
    * MDS - Master Data Services (basically a rules engine)
    * DQS - Data Quality Services (pluggable back end for data quality needs - batch or real time)
I do think SSAS is truly best in class. The others are all solid products, some better than most competitors, some middle of the road. You can certainly find equivalent open source products or vendor products and roll your own. But SQL Server as a SKU is not competing with your Postgres server. It's competing with damn near everything that touches data at your company.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#45

Post by dhd415 »

Beltiras wrote: post #22
gaius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because SQL Server is actually an excellent database, fast, reliable and full-featured. Consider that Postgres only got parallel queries a few months ago that SQL Server has had for 15 years! And in terms of replication, clustering etc SQL Server is still well ahead of PG. Now don't get me wrong I am a huge PG fan, but burying your head in the sand "because it's Microsoft" is unprofessional.

MSSQL still doesn't have replication on Linux. Here's one data scientists hillarious take on the difference between MSSQL and Postgres: https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/

I'm a big fan of PG and PG is good enough that it can compare favorably to MSSQL on its own merits, but that article reads more as a screed against commercial software than an objective assessment of PG's strengths relative to MSSQL. As an example, a big advantage of MSSQL for data analysis applications is its column store indexes which the author dismisses as something he doesn't use.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#46

Post by pmelendez »

dhd415 wrote: post #43
frik wrote: post #36

MS SQL Server database is a very old codebase. It dates back to Sybase SQL Server database (1980). Microsoft licensed and forked Sybase SQL in late 1980s and early 1990s and branded t as MS SQL Server. The strategic manoeuvre to get this database and basically got rid of a major vendor is not uncommon for MSFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Serve... and additional background info: https://en.…

You're misinformed about the nature of the SQL Server codebase. While it was originally licensed from Sybase, all parts of it have been completely re-worked. I read somewhere that they celebrated "zero Sybase day" or something to that effect in the early 2000s to mark the retirement of the last of the original Sybase code. Some more info here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/euanga/2006/01/19/sql-mythb... As for its…

The main issue I have seen with SQL Server was a constant deadlock (every two weeks or so) over a table with high writes (peak at 800k per sec), which was annoying because the fail-back to the replica affected the DNS entries and meant 5-15min of outage.

But to be fair it was an example of the wrong tool used badly in the wrong situation deployed in a poor environment.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#47

Post by detaro »

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #17
mootothemax wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any valid use cases? I'm personally a fully competent Linux sysadmin, and an extremely incompetent Windows sysadmin. SQL Server is great, I love .NET, and the only thing holding me back all these years has been the Windows system requirement.

I consider myself a first-rate Linux sysadmin, and a perfectly competent Windows sysadmin as well, but this is a position I can't wrap my head around. If you're willing to pay thousands of dollars for a properly-licensed SQL Server install, why do you care if it needs to run on Windows? I would normally assume you don't want the license cost of the OS, but it's a tiny fraction of the overall licensing cost. The only…

You might want to use MSSQL as a database and be able to sell your product to companies that do not have Windows servers around (and no staff with experience running them). And Microsoft wants to allow you to do that so you don't start building integrations with other databases to support those clients, and then those take MSSQL sales away.

And even in companies that have Windows MSSQL on Linux might be useful, e.g. if they have a linux-centric virtualization infrastructure.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#48

Post by mrmondo »

merb wrote: post #15

Exchange and AD would be huge. Unfortunatly Exchange needs IIS and probably an AD server.

We replaced all our AD servers with SAMBA4, so much more reliable and while AD/LDAP is still a nightmare of an architecture having it running on standard Linux servers means it's much easier to monitor, backup, snapshot, introspect and it far out performs windows based DCs.

Re: MSSQL on Linux – the details

#49

Post by frik »

dhd415 wrote: post #43
frik wrote: post #36

MS SQL Server database is a very old codebase. It dates back to Sybase SQL Server database (1980). Microsoft licensed and forked Sybase SQL in late 1980s and early 1990s and branded t as MS SQL Server. The strategic manoeuvre to get this database and basically got rid of a major vendor is not uncommon for MSFT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Serve... and additional background info: https://en.…

You're misinformed about the nature of the SQL Server codebase. While it was originally licensed from Sybase, all parts of it have been completely re-worked. I read somewhere that they celebrated "zero Sybase day" or something to that effect in the early 2000s to mark the retirement of the last of the original Sybase code. Some more info here: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/euanga/2006/01/19/sql-mythb... As for its…

Instead of accusing me, maybe look at yourself. I correctly mentioned that it started as a fork of Sybase, and if you would have spent a minute with my first link, it's clearly mentioned that they refactored the codebase from C to C++ they completed with v2005. Of course there are still many parts in there for various reasons dating back more than 20 years, but it's now maintainable, refactored and internally documented. It's like Internet Explorer which started as a Mosaic fork, and there are still behaviours in IE11 and even in Edge (which started as fork of Trident from IE11) that date back to mid 1990s. Or with Half Life 2 and other Valve's Source-Engine video games - it all started from a Quake 1 engine fork, and you can still spot behaviours and there is still old stuff from ID software in crucial parts, even after like 20 years of refactoring.

And yes, it's good to have a choice. Some software is designed to run in combination with MSSQL. So it's good that they ported it to Linux.

Post reply on HN