>
> >From time to time I have see people make the claim that Firebird (and
> Interbase) requires "zero administration" compared to other databases.
> A consultant who just came into the company I am working for is going
> off on that claim (I sort of repeated it) saying something like:
>
> "Firebird is not not very scalable and while you might call it
> 'zero administration' this is not the case. It requires indexes to be
> built for optimization, etc"

I wouldn't call indices "administration" but rather "database design".

> Now I have been using Interbase/Firebird for so long.. I am really out
> of the loop for what other database require for administration besides
> creating indexes and backups.. which is all I seem to do with
> Firebird. Firebird is pretty much zero administration for me.
>
> So if anyone with experience with Firebird and OTHER databases like
> Oracle, DB2 or MSSQL can tell me how Firebird administration is
> easier, if it indeed is?

For example, the dreaded "transaction log" of MS SQL which needs to
be truncated sometimes.

Oracle often needs close monitoring and fiddling around with memory
parameters to keep it running. Careful placement and/or creation of
rollback segments (not in v10) so that everything keeps running smooth
etc etc...

With regards,

Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL, Oracle & MS SQL
Server
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
Database development questions? Check the forum!
http://www.databasedevelopmentforum.com