InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comFri, 24 May 2013 17:20:23 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic561824-149-1.aspxAgreed with all the comments. SQL Server 2005 / 2008 are both very capable of handling that and more, the question really has to be "what do you have skills in supporting?" because ultimately there are areas which need more attention when we start looking at larger data sets. So, assess your company profile, technology direction and then make your decision. If you don't have any deep skills in any of the major DB platforms then SQL Server will offer the easiest learning curve for the most part and will offer the lowest managability price point (an often neglected consideration). Tue, 02 Sep 2008 07:03:42 GMTDavid Benoithttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic561824-149-1.aspxBe sure to check licensing costs, too. Many org's find Oracle's license structure prohibitive.Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:58:47 GMTdavidr-632841http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic561824-149-1.aspxMy advise is to use whatever your organisation has the most skills in. The first preference is to leave it in DB2, as moving it means you are paying money to stand still. If you absolutely have to move it, what other skills does your organisation have. If you are mainly a MySQL installation, put it into MySQL. If you are mainly a SQL Server installation, put it into SQL Server. Likewise for Oracle, Sybase, etc. Any enterprise-quality database that your organisation is skilled in will do the job. It is more important to leverage existing skills than introduce a new product.Do not be tempted to put the data into departmental-class database systems such as Access, unless you do not mind loosing some of the data.If you do decide on SQL Server, then use SQL Server 2008. Even though it has only recently been released it has many improvements over SQL Server 2005, and any serious bugs will have been fixed before you have completed your migration to it.Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:28:11 GMTEdVassiehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic561824-149-1.aspx60 million rows is not beyond SQL's capabilities. I've had more than that in a single table. The design needs to be done carefully, but it is possible.Are you expecting 10 million more rows per hour, per day, per month?Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:53:19 GMTGilaMonsterhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic561824-149-1.aspxTeam, Considering am having some data in DB2 and I need to migrate those data into the new system. Am having around 30 million records with archive 30 million records... so totally 60 million records needs to be stored in my database. We are expecting 10 million new records... Whether SQL Server is apt for this scenario... Or Oracle can be used for this scenario... Need justification for the same. I am very much concern with the performance of my database too :-) ............................... If SQL Server is good which version of SQL Server is best...2005 or 2008.... Need justification for the same. Please help me.. Regards,Venkatesan Prabu .Jhttp://venkattechnicalblog.blogspot.com/Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:18:02 GMTVenkatesan Prabu