Re: licensing $$ comparison to SQLServer?

Glen A Stromquist wrote:

> Daniel Morgan wrote:
>
> > Glen A Stromquist wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone on the NG done a licensing cost comparison to SqlServer in the
> >> recent past?
> >>
> >> We are just bringing on an enterprise wide app and our user base is going
> >> way up, and converting our grandfathered concurrent users license to
> >> accomodate the added users for a new named user license will push our
> >> cost up 385%. Needless to say my boss is less than impressed and I have
> >> been instructed to look at alternatives, as the app in question will run
> >> on either DB.
> >>
> >> I looked at the MS SQLserver site and can't find where their cost per CAL
> >> seat is. They give a price for their EE with 25 CALS, but thats all I can
> >> find at the moment.
> >>
> >> TIA
> >
> > The licensing cost is only one piece of a very complex calculation. Why
> > not ask for the Total Cost Of Ownership?
> >
> > 1. Cost to rewrite application front-end
> > 2. Cost to rewrite application back-end
> > 3. Cost to retrain personnel
> > 4. Cost of downtime due to instability of app, RDBMS, and/or operating
> > system 5. Cost of downtime duet to security violation
> > 6. Cost of hardware to achieve performance benchmark
> >
> > I, and my customers, gladly pay more for Oracle licenses. Because we save
> > larger dollars on everything else.
> >
> > When I was consulting at Boeing a few years back we tested the latest
> > version of SQL Server and proved that with as few as three concurrent
> > users we could bring it to its knees in a hard crash requiring a reboot.
> > The same was impossible in Oracle with 100X as many users. Needless to say
> > SQL Server, while used at Boeing, is not allowed for line-of-business
> > (mission critical) applications ... only Oracle, DB2, and Teradata. There
> > are a lot of things that are more important than the cost of a software
> > and support license. I would suggest that you consider them too.
> >
> > Daniel Morgan
>
> Yes of course you are right on all of these points, but the decision is not
> mine to make, just present the numbers to management as well as the pro's &
> cons.
>
> I use(administer) both databases, and you dont have to sell me on Oracle.
> As far as users go however, the database itself is transparent to them so
> other than possible performance issues they would not know the difference
> as the app(s) in question will run on either platform. The sqlserver DB's
> we do have do run ok but are relatively small and simple compared to the
> Oracle DB's.
>
> However since posting this I did find out some more and did find out that
> although MS is initially less expensive at 10k per server $232 per seat or
> CAL, you are paying on a per seat per database basis for EVERY database,
> whereas the way I understand Oracles licensing the named user license
> covers multi-servers, ie. you pay the same per named user if that user is
> accessing 1 or 10 oracle databases. Taking this in to account with the
> number of databases we have converting them all to SQL would likely end up
> being a wash cost wise or even more $$ than Oracle, but possibly deploying
> the new one in SQL may have a cost benefit as the Oracle named user base
> stays the same.
>
> I'll likely have to do a spreadsheet with all kinds of scenarios to present
> to management - lucky me! :-(
>
> Actually when it all comes out in the wash I think I may have a vaild case
> for converting our existing sqlserver db's to oracle.
>
> TIA
If you do, and it is not a violation of your agreement with your employer ... I would very much like to receive a sanitized version of it (no company or person's names) to show to my students.

Daniel Morgan Received on Fri Sep 27 2002 - 10:15:21 CDT