Re: Bye Oracle.

I'll concede half your point, since if the cluster is configured for fail over you do not have to license the unused box, however the server licensing for sql server 2000 reads

Server Software. You may install one copy of the Server Software on a single Server. If the Server has more than one processor, you must obtain a separate license for each processor on that Server.

So it looks to me that for enterprise edition (which you would need for an app of this size and resilience) sqlserver licensing would be 12*20k = 240,000 dollars rather than the 10k you quote.

--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
Audit Commission UK
*****************************************
Please include version and platform
and SQL where applicable
It makes life easier and increases the
likelihood of a good answer

******************************************
"Chuck" <chuckh_at_softhome.net> wrote in message
news:arlgbq$jqcaa$1_at_ID-85580.news.dfncis.de...


> You do the math. 2 nodes on a cluster, 12 cpus, 40K per cpu.  That's

nearly


> 1 million dollars for a single application! You have to license every CPU

in


> the cluster even if oracle is only running on one at a time.

> --

> Chuck

>

>

> "Daniel Morgan" <dmorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message

> news:3DDBFB2E.67856061_at_exesolutions.com...

> > Chuck wrote:

> >

> > > "Karsten Farrell" <kfarrell_at_belgariad.com> wrote in message

> > > news:LNPC9.33$8o5.4324386_at_newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

> > > > NorwoodThree wrote:

> > > > > Our company is trying to phase out Oracle in favor of SQL Server

due


> > > > > to licensing costs for our data warehouse.

> > > > >

> > > > > I dont want to cause a huge thread, but is there a link somewhere

> that

> > > > > explains the disadvantages to this?  I dont know anything about

SQL


> > > > > Server.  I know there have been threads as to "Oracle vs. SQL

> Server"

> > > > > but it doesnt answer my question directly.  I want to stick with

> > > > > Oracle.

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks.

> > > > Call your Oracle sales person. I'm sure they have *lots* of white

> papers

> > > > that will tell you why Oracle is better than SQL Server.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I don't think anyone here would argue that Oracle is the better

> database.

> > > The question is whether it's better enough to justify the higher price

> tag.

> > > Not long ago our company priced licensing on a new DB to support a web

> based

> > > app. 99.99% of the users would be internal. .01% would access it via

the


> > > internet. The price for Oracle was over $1,000,000. Sql server was

> around

> > > $10,000 and DB2 was around $20,000. Oracle's pricing made it a no

> brainer.

> >

> > Nonsense! Absolute nonsense.

> >

> > Higher yes? These numbers? I'd find it easier to believe in the Easter

> Bunny.

> >

> > Daniel Morgan

> >

>

>