Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Brings SQL Server To Linux (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: The new Microsoft has place an increased importance on the cloud, and with other companies following suit, reliance on server solutions has increased. Today the company announces that it is bringing SQL Server to Linux. Both cloud and on-premises versions will be available, and the news has been welcomed by the likes of Red Hat and Canonical. Although the Linux port of SQL Server is not due to make an appearance until the middle of next year, a private preview version is being available to testers starting today. While the full launch of SQL Server for Linux is not due until the middle of 2017, SQL Server 2016 is expected to launch later this year.
April 1st isn't for another month silly.
April 1st isn't for another month.
That explosion and mushroom cloud was Steve Ballmer's head exploding.
Just what Linux needed!
...as temperatures reportedly fall all over hell.
Loading...
It looks like Microsoft is well on their way towards embracing Linux. Of course, what worries me is what comes AFTER embracing and extending. You old-time Slashdotters know what I'm talking about, right?
Finding God in a Dog
On mobile Microsoft has pretty much given up and support Android and iOS as well or better than Windows Mobile now now on the Server side we've already seen .Net moving fast to Linux and now the third biggest lock in application on Windows Server(AD and Exchange being bigger) is coming to Linux. With AD and Exchange being pushed more towards hosted services in the cloud, Windows' future doesn't look too bright there.
they are not bringing sql to linux
No, they're bringing their SQL Server to Linux.
Perfect. Maybe systemd can use it for logging, like a modern operating system.
an ill wind that blows no good
How long before we see a version of "Microsoft Linux"?
You laugh now, but I can see them glomming onto Linux, especially as more businesses and desktop move over to Linux.
And yes, of course it will have subtle incompatibilities that grow more and more pronounced over time. That's what it's all about with Microsoft.
"MS Linux- Because We Care" or maybe, MS Linux- The Most Stable OS We've Ever Produced!*
-
* and by "produced", we mean "stolen"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I don't see how SqlServer can compete against Postgresql. The only thing SqlServer had going for it was integration with .Net framework.
...when hell thawed a little
They are more than happy to let you spin up a linux instance on Azure. Having their stack work across them all seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of these!
It will probably perform a helluva lot better on Linux. Even more interesting is Microsoft's shifting stance on open source.
One thing MS learned from Windows is that for customers, compatibility often matters more than quality. Customers end up getting themselves married to a tool stack.
Table-ized A.I.
they are not bringing sql to linux
No, they're bringing their SQL Server to Linux.
they are not bringing sql to linux
No, they're bringing their SQL Server to Linux.
Thanks capt obvious
"SQL Server" is a product name.
The current SQL Server code-base contain little if any of the code from the first version.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
When they're saying "Microsoft brings SQL Server to Linux" do they really have to write "Microsoft brings Microsoft SQL Server to Linux" just so people like you don't get completely confused by the statement?
If Microsoft wanted to extinguish Linux, they wouldn't even have to do a damn thing these days.
The Linux community is doing a superb job of extinguishing Linux all on its own.
Regardless of what you think about it, systemd has caused massive disruption within the Linux ecosystem.
The Debian project, which for a long time was the premiere Linux distribution, has been torn apart by its decision to use systemd.
Lots of other Linux users have had systemd cause them serious problems, including computers that would no longer boot properly.
Many of these Linux users have chosen to move to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, OS X, and even Windows in some cases.
And that's all on top of the problems that GNOME 3, NetworkManager, and PulseAudio have caused.
Then there's the failure of the Wayland project to create a modern replacement for X.
Each one of these failures has hurt Linux's viability, and there's no end in sight!
Existing users are being driven away, and there are no new users replacing them.
Correct. I don't think anyone has made the claim that it is either of those two things. Thanks for stating the obvious, I guess.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Make sure to give some feedback!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sounds like a joke? No I'm serious.
I don't need yet another database in Linux. PostgreSQL is fine, thank you. Even MySQL/MariaDB are OK.
What I miss is a GUI interface to these databases, which would allow me to quickly build GUI applications for users. MS Access can show PostgreSQL data to users in quickly designed forms and reports. And these can have some (horrible) VBA code to make a few things faster and easier for the users. Without Access, I have to make HTML interfaces, which works fine for simple reports, but gets really clumsy and slow for complex interactive forms.
(Yes, I know about PGadmin. It's great for me, and I use it regularly. But it's not for designing custom user interfaces to databases)
We'll port systemd to Windows!
Have gnu, will travel.
Here's one data point - based on from experience migrating a pretty big system from [a major proprietary database mentioned in the article] to Postgres, I think the two biggest advantages Postgres has are:
GIST and GIN indexes (and soon BRIN indexes), and
Writeable CTEs.
We migrated a very busy, pretty large (24 CPU core, 256GB RAM, 20TB disk space) system from [a major proprietary database mentioned in the article] to Postgres about a year ago. These graphs measuring CPU and disk activity provide a nice visualization of the improvement:
http://imgur.com/a/bp2ky
Note that with [a major proprietary database mentioned in the article], all 24 CPU cores in the system were over 40% utilized (and growing) 24x7 most days a year. After a pretty naive port (November to May in the graph) the CPU load fell to an average of about 10%, and the disk array's queue length fell from painful to near zero. After adding some Postgres-specific code, we got it down to an average of near 5% (shown in the most recent month in the graph).
CPU differences seem to have been mostly related to the availability of GIN indexes in Postgres, which can be much more efficient on certain types of data (like the OpenStreetMap road network).
Disk I/O improvements seems to be mostly related to Postgres's far more compact storage of XML data. Seems SQL Server stores XML data using 2-bytes-per-character for the data itself; and on top of that adds extremely large indexes. In contrast, the "toast" feature in Postgres means the XML data takes an average of less than one byte per character for the data and its "functional index" feature allowed for far more compact indexes. One of our XML-heavy databases went from over 600GB in SQL Server down to 140GB in Postgres, with more efficient indexes.
For a few months we tried to stay database-agnostic so it'd be easy to port back if we needed to -- but after a while we started adding Postgres specific changes. The benefits of those Postgres specific changes can be seen near the end of those graphs. An enormous improvement occurred when we changed the inserts and updates to use the Writable CTE features following recommendations someone outlined here
.
In the end, Postgres looks to me like it's saving us like 5X in hardware costs as we continue to grow.
Edit: I'm told this proprietary database vendor dislikes users publishing benchmark results comparing their software to F/OSS databases. I'd argue that this is more of an anecdote than a benchmark; but just in case I edited the comment to remove the vendor and product name from the parts that talk about performance.
Disclaimer: As mentioned in a comment below, we tried to tune each the systems to the best of our team's abilities, but aren't really experts in tuning either database system. No doubt each system's results could be improved by people who were deeply available with each databases internals (which I argue is much easier to find for Postgres, since its mailing lists have thousands of people familiar with the internal code).
I think M$FT realized that they couldn't scale their cloud architecture on windows so they started porting Azure services to run on Linux. May as well release their linux versions..
Your UID is a prime number.
I know, I know... This is off-topic but, damn it, it's important to me!
I even went and found you a link to show it:
http://www.numberempire.com/pr...
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Not only is SQL Server coming to Linux, but it's already being integrated into systemd!
Granted each went their own direction in enhancing the underlying server/client code (e.g. Sybase took forever to implement row level locking), but they are still very similar. Ex.) TDS (I would have provided a link to MSDN, but they were timing out at the time of writing this.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
MSSQL is a rebrand of Sybase.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Microsoft moving releasing a desktop *nix is about as likely as Apple doing so. And running it on Intel chips. ;) It could certainly happen.
* Fyi for anyone who didn't happen to know, OS X is certified UNIX (tm).
There clearly is no new MS, just an old MS that is getting a bit desperate and finds what some of its customers want increasingly hard to ignore.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Awesome story. I'd wondered about Postgres and heavy-duty jobs; turns out it's as impressive as touted.
I worked 25 years in an Oracle shop, from Oracle 6.1 to Oracle 12c; assumed everything else, certainly FLOSS stuff, had to be toy products by comparison.
Then I tried PostGIS because I was working with the new free GIS program, QGIS, and PostGIS isn't just a free RDBMS, it's a geodatabase. Soon, I found it was handling gigabytes of map data in an eyeblink - on a laptop. The more reading I did on it, the more of those "enterprise level" features for handling massive data sizes and user numbers I saw. I've wondered why I don't hear more about it.
We had some interaction with EnterpriseDB, who not only sell service, but have their own add-on software that makes shifting to Postgres from Oracle pretty easy for most. I just don't see how we aren't going to hear about more conversions soon.
MSSQL is a rebrand of Sybase.
MSSQL was a rebrand of Sybase -- in the early 90s.
Since then it has been completely rewritten. Here is a timeline. SQL Server is a seriously good product. Not just a seriously good product for Microsoft, but a seriously good product. It's SQL for when NOSQL is not enough.
disastrous Windows "Anal Plug" 10 release... It seems related to me
In case anyone's wondering how parent managed to "edit" his Slashdot post: this is a verbatim copy from a Reddit post.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
After they push users to Linux Desktops, now they want to facilitate users to migrate from SQL Server by porting it to linux (and making the Windows Server S.O. license not needed anymore :P)
So it's an SQL Injection attack, on Linux?
I'd rather have Oracle or Postgresql......not Access on steroids.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yes - I should have mentioned that.
SQL Server is still used a lot in line-of-business applications. They're not necessarily used for the 'regular' database stuff, but things like BackupExec and Veeam use SQL Server as their backend to manage things like volume sets and backup jobs and their success/fail status. A company I used to work for used a piece of software called eFreedom that prepared their annual financial statements. A company who's a client at my present company uses SQL server for the back end of their point of sale system. The CRM software Goldmine runs on SQL Server.
There's lots of applications that use SQL Server for their backend data storage. Yes, it's frequently a part of a "bigger whole", and usually integrated into locally installed applications than stuff that runs through a web browser, but it has indeed carved out a bit of a niche for itself.
> A strict UNIX certification would be worthless as only the FOSS variants would qualify and where is the money in that?
The opposite is true. POSIX aka Single Unix is pretty strict, which is why most Linux distributions don't quite meet the criteria. Most of the systems which are registered as complying with the Single UNIX Specification (aka POSIX) are NOT FOSS.
> And yet BSD isn't certified and neither are it's various children.
False. Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard is mostly BSD, and registered. Sun/Oracle Solaris is another of BSD's "various children" which is registered.
Did you intend to say that FOSS code is NOT certified?
Inspur K-UX is a Red Hat based Linux distribution which is configured to be certified UNIX.
*sigh*
And in 2016, STILL the juvenile potshots at Microsoft are being perpetuated. So, I'll take one of my own: I suppose you like Postgres (which is a great alternative) or Oracle (which sucks so hard you probably owe it money now) simply because they're more difficult to use, and therefore must be better somehow.
I used to think that MS-SQL was a toy, but, now, in 2016, for probably 95% of all the database installations out there, assuming you have a choice, MS-SQL is a cheaper and easier to administer than either Postgres or Oracle. This is coming from a guy that has been doing this for 20 years, and have actually holds the title of DBA, administering Oracle, Postgres, MySQL and MS-SQL side by side.
A license for MS-SQL is a whole lot cheaper than an Oracle or Postgres DBA, by the way.
I don't get it. Why would they do that? It's self-foot-shooting in the short run, and desperation in the long run. Its my understanding that better alternatives exist, for free.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
So with MSSQL you don't need a DBA? Where the hell did you get that? SQL Server costs anywhere from $4-$15k/core. Any modern system will have ~8-16 cores, the Postgres DBA you hire must be pretty darn expensive to compete with that.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
So, don't hold your breath or think there is a new Microsoft. They are going to be clubbing someone real soon now.
Would this be a bad time to release Baby Harp Seal Linux?
That's a not so sure woo hoo. Why? Because it's a database for Linux that's not owned by Oracle.
Maybe Microsoft is putting it out there for acquisition? Has to be another motive for it, right?
Maybe we can then get some performance out of this pig. MSSQL Server on on Windows Server is the biggest performance bottleneck in enterprise apps, plus MSSQL is ridiculously difficult to maintain.
Kind of like saying North, Central, and South Americans, instead of just Americans?
MSSQL is a rebrand of Sybase.
MSSQL was a rebrand of Sybase -- in the early 90s.
Since then it has been completely rewritten. Here is a timeline
And MSSQL and Sybase SQL split in 1993, at least according to the Wikipedia article on Sybase, so, unless there was a Sybase SQL for Linux 2 years or so after the first version of the Linux kernel was released, Linux didn't have Sybase SQL before "microidiot bought the thing".