I sent you the spreadsheet Daniel - let me know if you dont receive it. FYI
in the end, with our "named user credits", if we were to go 100% oracle at
our site we are about $40k ahead becuase of MS's charger per server
license. However without the credit the SS are definatly in SQL servers
favor, as you will see in the model. This looks at cost only, not any
performance, reliability or other issues.
HTH
Daniel Morgan wrote:
> 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 - 16:59:33 CDT
