Re: licensing $$ comparison to SQLServer?

Glen A Stromquist wrote:

> 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

It did not arrive. Could I trouble you to please resend to: damorgan9i_at_yahoo.com

Thanks,

Daniel Morgan Received on Wed Oct 02 2002 - 10:08:48 CDT