>>Thanks a lot. I'll read that now.
>>I've come accross quite a lot of discussion online but no-one seems to agree on whether SQL server really matches Oracle at enterprise level. It seems that SQL server has nothing to compare with things like Oracle's real application clusters. Also there seems to be a general perception that sql server is not good for databases of over 1 terabyte and 250 users. Although a few sql server heads dispute this.
>>There are very strong opinions on both sides. The view that I am currently taking is that, whilst sql server is very attractive (due to much lower licensing costs), it doesn't yet provide comparable functionality at enterprise level. That's not to say that it won't get there in the future. Oracle is also more widely used and proven at enterprise level. The old addage about no-one ever getting sacked for buying Dell springs to mind. Whatever I recommend I'm sticking my neck out. Oracle might be more expensive but sql server might loose me my head.
>
>NASA DB is 700TB and is powered by SQLServer2000
>Bank of NewYork hase 5000 users of SQLServer
>
>HTH

Really? Didn't know that...
My brother, that lives in Paris, has a very peculiar job: he is kind of a "deal closer" for Oracle. What he does specifically is build multi-TB databases and benchmark complex queries/heavy load. He proves that SQL Server breaks ( he calls it a toy btw ), shows that db2 is too slow to be usable in those cases and that Oracle shines, which gets them the deal ( that's multi-million dollars deals generally ). I know for instance that lately, all banks in Turkey are moving from SQL Server to Oracle. Same goes about France Telecom...