So go ahead and promote more SQL Server databases. Google thinks they're good for many applications, and that's good enough for most developers.
It doesn't look like Google used SQL Server in Spanner or Chubby. I'm probably the odd one out because I actually read the articles LOL!
Even with NoSQL, at some point you're going to be faced with consistency requirements. Either you code for consistency in the application layer, or you generalize it and it becomes part of your data access layer. In the absence of either, you are only offering statistical probabilities that the database "might be in a particular state."
The linked papers are pretty interesting! Google still does not violate CAP, but they really have incredible redundancy in their networks and produce the sort of high availability that really reduces the 'P' in CAP. I found this little snippet really awesome:
Starting in 2009, due to “excess” availability, Chubby’s Site Reliability Engineers (SREs) started forcing periodic outages to ensure we continue to understand dependencies and the impact of Chubby failures.
I still agree that for the scale that most of IT works at, SQL Server is a great solution, while there may be areas that you want to build custom data storage systems, you really need a good reason to and you'd better have some seriously skilled programmers to handle what SQL Server provides out of the box.
to properly post on a forum:http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/61537/