Re: Oracle vs SQL Server
From: gs <gs_at_gs.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:19:55 GMT
Message-ID: <%F5Hl.23221$Db2.20535_at_edtnps83>
Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:22:20 -0700, johnbhurley wrote:
>
>
> SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle. Oracle is very expensive. I don't
> have any experience with SQL Server but I have moved Oracle databases to
> both MySQL and PostgreSQL. Such moves are frequently justified, in case of
> small databases. In many cases, Oracle RDBMS was used to replace MS
> Access, an enormous overkill. PgSQL or MySQL can do that very well at the
> fraction of the cost. If the database is larger then 4GB, Oracle XE is not
> an option.
>
> Of course, I did the opposite, too. One of my favorite recent projects
> included moving the product called Cacti from MySQL to Oracle. The
> polling scripts were being run simultaneously and the underlying MySQL
> database couldn't cope with 10 simultaneous transactions. The solution
> was to insert the results from the polling scripts into an Oracle XE and
> then transfer the data from Oracle XE into MySQL using Perl. After that,
> Cacti was happily drawing the results.
>
> After some experiences with Oracle's "stick 'em up and gimme all your
> money" licensing policies, I stopped recommending Oracle first. SQL Server
> is a good alternative, if it works. No reasons for paying the premium
> price, if that is not needed. There is a crisis, it's a harsh world out
> there. Don't misunderestimate me, but I would check the SQL Server
> solution, too.
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 21:19:55 GMT
Message-ID: <%F5Hl.23221$Db2.20535_at_edtnps83>
Mladen Gogala wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:22:20 -0700, johnbhurley wrote:
>
>> Personally I would not ask for a SQL Server reference unless that is a >> path that you really want to go down.
>
> SQL Server is much cheaper than Oracle. Oracle is very expensive. I don't
> have any experience with SQL Server but I have moved Oracle databases to
> both MySQL and PostgreSQL. Such moves are frequently justified, in case of
> small databases. In many cases, Oracle RDBMS was used to replace MS
> Access, an enormous overkill. PgSQL or MySQL can do that very well at the
> fraction of the cost. If the database is larger then 4GB, Oracle XE is not
> an option.
>
> Of course, I did the opposite, too. One of my favorite recent projects
> included moving the product called Cacti from MySQL to Oracle. The
> polling scripts were being run simultaneously and the underlying MySQL
> database couldn't cope with 10 simultaneous transactions. The solution
> was to insert the results from the polling scripts into an Oracle XE and
> then transfer the data from Oracle XE into MySQL using Perl. After that,
> Cacti was happily drawing the results.
>
> After some experiences with Oracle's "stick 'em up and gimme all your
> money" licensing policies, I stopped recommending Oracle first. SQL Server
> is a good alternative, if it works. No reasons for paying the premium
> price, if that is not needed. There is a crisis, it's a harsh world out
> there. Don't misunderestimate me, but I would check the SQL Server
> solution, too.
In some cases MSSQL may not be the cheapest solution, some time back I did some research into converting all our oracle db's to MSSQL and vice versa. At the time (and I think its still the same) you needed a license and separate cal for each MSSQL database out there, whereas with x number of oracle named users (now plus) I could have unlimited databases so long as I didn't exceed the # of processors alloted to the number of named users. The result was Oracle being the cheaper solution of the two. Received on Mon Apr 20 2009 - 16:19:55 CDT