Re: Oracle vs SQL Server
From: joel garry <joel-garry_at_home.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c1700a43-2c8a-48b6-b7b0-f4de2a4c9468_at_f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 20, 2:19 pm, gs <g..._at_gs.com> wrote:
> 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.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <c1700a43-2c8a-48b6-b7b0-f4de2a4c9468_at_f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com>
On Apr 20, 2:19 pm, gs <g..._at_gs.com> wrote:
> 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.
This is a very good point. To the OP: Google: Total Cost of Ownership Model
Of course, at some point this breaks down or doesn't apply. The one that immediately comes to mind is the military: they often have site licenses so they can have whatever MS or Oracle they want. This transfers the costing to politics and hardware aquisition. You wind up with stuff like Windows NT controlling ships, including the predictable BSoD. Can't make it up: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/?p=490
jg
-- _at_home.com is bogus. I still laugh about GCN not knowing the difference between PDP and VAX.Received on Tue Apr 21 2009 - 11:21:49 CDT