January 28, 2013 at 8:31 am
Hi, We are about to launch some new projects that has been designed to run under SQL Server 2012 databases. However after we ask our software vendor for the SQL Server Licensing price, we are about to give up using SQL Server and considering to adopt another database solution.
Let go to the numbers.
Case 1:
System: One system accessed from one applicantion server. This application Server opens several connections to the database. About 200 users.
Server: Dell Blade with 2 X Xeon 6 core total 12 core.
SQL Server Standart, Windows 2008 R2.
Price offered from our vendor:
USD 2818,00 for each 2 core per year.
Total USD 16912,00 per year X 3 years
Total SQL Server Licensing Cost for 3 years: US$ 50736,00!
Contract = Select + EA
We understand that is quite expensive for just one server with SQL Server Standart. Even using ORACLE the total price is above than 1/3 that SQL Server total price.
I really thank if somebody could help-me to check this license cost. If it is true, I going to study another database solutions, because SQL Server will be seriously commited in Small and medium companies.
Thanks in advance
Eduardo Pin
January 28, 2013 at 8:51 am
Prices will vary depending on your agreement with MS and what plan you are on, eg Select aggreement, EA aggreement, Open Value, EAP etc etc.
Base price on NL without software assurance, at last check was $1793 per core, so that works out at a 1 off cost for 12 cores of $21516, but if you want to add things like software assurance into the mix the price will jump dramatically.
Also if the server is hosted co-lo your pretty much stuck with what the hosting provider says the cost is.
You would need to ask your vendor what the price includes as SA can be quite expensive. So if you dont need it, then dont buy it, but be warned that if you want to upgrade within the 3 years, say if SQL2012R2 or SQL version 12 comes out, you wont be able to as your licenses dont cover you and you will need to pay again for the newer licenses.
January 28, 2013 at 11:47 am
anthony.green (1/28/2013)
Prices will vary depending on your agreement with MS and what plan you are on, eg Select aggreement, EA aggreement, Open Value, EAP etc etc.Base price on NL without software assurance, at last check was $1793 per core, so that works out at a 1 off cost for 12 cores of $21516, but if you want to add things like software assurance into the mix the price will jump dramatically.
Also if the server is hosted co-lo your pretty much stuck with what the hosting provider says the cost is.
You would need to ask your vendor what the price includes as SA can be quite expensive. So if you dont need it, then dont buy it, but be warned that if you want to upgrade within the 3 years, say if SQL2012R2 or SQL version 12 comes out, you wont be able to as your licenses dont cover you and you will need to pay again for the newer licenses.
The price that I written before comes with SA(upgradable) option.
Even though the base price is 1793/core, most of all servers (basic and cheap ) currently in the market come with 20 or more cores, what blows up many projects budgets.
Some are saying that is good for consultants that will tune databases, but for how long?
Personally, I consider that this new price is quite expensive, specially in my third world country (Brazil).
Now I'm already facing several clients that are asking for alternative database solutions.
January 28, 2013 at 12:14 pm
I Am probably reading this wrong:, but since I never stay at a Holiday Inn Express, I don't have the required Expertise:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc645993%28v=SQL.110%29.aspx
but i don't see a # of connections limitation on SQL Express;
so I think you can use SQL Express until your database exceeds ten gig, or you want to use more than one CPU for processing;
So Am I right? can you install SQL Express for your web server to hit under the existing license structure?
there are other handicaps, like no jobs/Sql Agent etc of course....
Lowell
January 29, 2013 at 2:36 am
Going off the base price list for Oracle, a processor license for Oracle Standard is $17,500 a processor. Now they detail that a processor is determined by the number of cores of the processor multiplied by a core processor licensing factor. Looking at the table that is currently 0.5 for Xeon chips. That means that each CPU you have will classify for 3 Oracle processor licenses, now as you have 2 CPU's you need 6. So thats a cost of $105000 right off the bat and it doesn't include SA. Add in SA its an extra $23100, unsure if thats a year, 1 off cost.
So still think SQL is expensive?
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf
http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core-factor-table-070634.pdf
March 27, 2013 at 11:54 am
Oracle list pricing is deceptive. Most companies negotiate a discount greater than 75%.
Microsoft pricing is completely different. Discounts are not very deep, unless you enter into an EAP agreement, and then only some SKUs are discounted 40%.
March 27, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Also, you really can't compare the pricing of SQL Server to that of Oracle without adding all the features you get in SQL Server at no additional cost to the cost of getting Oracle with the comparable features.
Elsewise you are comparing apples and oranges.
May 16, 2014 at 12:47 pm
I am not very interested in the price difference between SQL Server and Oracle.
I need to deliver database performance and reliability to our Fund and stay within budget
Our annual SQL Licensing just went from under 200K to just over 600K.
Clearly this is not going to work for use and MSFT has just lost a customer that has had SQL Server for over 18 years.
Herb
May 17, 2014 at 11:54 am
You can buy sql server 2012 standard licenses under server/cal licensing, but these prices seem to be based on core licensing. do you need core based licensing? the only time you would need core licensing with standard edition is when the amount of users/computers connecting either cannot be measured, or can be measured and is deemed more expensive than core licensing. So maybe suggest server/cal licensing as an alternative.
May 19, 2014 at 11:50 am
We are looking at standard edition. Howerver, our current SQL 2008 servers are 40 core servers with 512 GB of memory.
Standard does not support;
Partitioned data.
More than 128GB
More than 4 sockets
Database Snapshots
Online Indexing
Parallel indexed operations
etc.
May 19, 2014 at 12:26 pm
hmischel (5/16/2014)
I am not very interested in the price difference between SQL Server and Oracle.I need to deliver database performance and reliability to our Fund and stay within budget
Our annual SQL Licensing just went from under 200K to just over 600K.
Clearly this is not going to work for use and MSFT has just lost a customer that has had SQL Server for over 18 years.
Herb
I believe that you're not considering a huge set of costs. You'll have a huge amount of lost learning all the way from the Help Desk, through the Developers, up through the DBAs, and even with Managers and PMs. You'll also have to consider any impact you might have on your applications, backup systems, replication systems, DR systems, etc, etc, ad infinitum. True "Portability" between unlike RDBMSs simply does not exist even if your ORMs can handle it.
And, to be blunt, you shouldn't need 40 core to support "about 200 users" even on the worst day and changing RDBMSs isn't going to change that. Actually it might... depending on what you change you, you may, indeed, need 40 core depending on the condition of your code. 😉
Whatever you decide, be very, very careful to fully identify ALL the hidden costs because they can be huge, indeed. Even something as simple as not having as many forums to go to can have a major impact in development costs (never mind the lost learning that I previously identified).
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 20, 2014 at 6:41 am
About that: have you checked what the per-user licensing price would be for 200 users? When you have so many processor cores with so few users, it might actually work out cheaper than getting the per-core licensing you're looking at.
May 20, 2014 at 7:40 am
I am not sure where you picked up a 200 user number, but that really isn't relevant.
When considering the type of activity we do, 20 cores is not a lot.
When running high speed quant trading or risk simulations or market data scrubbing, you need a serious amount of horsepower.
Simple OLTP is not the issue.
In speaking to MSFT, the strategy they are offering is downsize to standard edition where possible and consolidate on Enterprise where feasible.
That works to a point.
Obviously we cannot move our entire enterprise operation overnight.
However, we were a firm that has moved most of our systems off of Sybase to SQL Server over the past several years. We were content to stay with SQL as a single "go to" Database.
The new pricing model has compelled us to bring in other RDBMS vendors and starting with the simpler applications, we will be moving away from SQL Server.
Based on last quarters earnings, it looks like the Tier 1 customers (Big banks) had no issue with the price increase as SQL Server revenue exceeded expectations.
Lets see what happens with the secondary markets. I believe many small to midsize firms who are enterprise users will not quickly upgrade with this new pricing model.
I believe MSFT may be starting to feel this pressure as I am for the first time hearing about discounts on SQL 2014.
I think the loss of a large number of midsize firms would create a vacuum that other RDBMS would rush to fill.
It is not difficult to create a Transact-sql clone if the market exists.
Herb
May 20, 2014 at 7:51 am
I suspect both Jeff and I got the 200 user figure from the original post in this 18-month old thread you resurrected... :rolleyes:
May 20, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Sounds about right - I'm usually about 18 months behind on most things 😉
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply