December 16, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Better Licensing
December 17, 2007 at 3:44 am
I'm a little rusty on licensing options now, since it's a while since I had that particular responsibility in my current company. However, last time I made a comparison, the water was muddied quite a bit based on the whole area of development environments.
At that point, Oracle charged quite a bit per processor for any production installation, whilst SQL Server was far cheaper, but required licenses for every installation. Given any of our mainstream applications have a production, test, development and (usually) at least one sandpit environment, that means SQL Server had to be less than a quarter of the per processor price of Oracle to be fiscally competitive. And that, of course, was before we took into account the high-volume capabilities of different platforms (the gap's closing, but at that point Solaris provided a clear advantage, effectively ruling out SQL Server at the first hurdle).
Now, if MS moved to a Production Instances Only licensing model, that'd really be something to think about.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
December 17, 2007 at 5:51 am
Great editorial Steve!
I saw what I interpretted as a push by Microsoft to move into Oracle and DB2 shops with per-socket and multiple-instances-per-seat* licensing over the past couple years. And I saw them succeed in so doing.
In addition, I've seen the functionality and performance of SSIS when compared to other enterprise ETL engines open a few doors for SQL Server.
Major: I believe you get a Developer Edition license with each Enterprise license. Developer is effectively the Enterprise engines minus the license for Production use. Even if you buy a Developer license, I think they're still $50 - way cheaper than the 25% offset you're applying.
I agree with you Steve: @@version should return more.
Merry Christmas!
o Andy
* My understanding of this: Microsoft allows you to install as many instances of SQL Server on a single box as you desire. For example: If you purchase a 4-chip license for SQL Server 2005 (or 2008 - I believe they're the same price) Enterprise and the server is built with four quad-core processors, you can install a couple larger instances and set processor affinity to utilize 4 cores each, then install a couple more smaller instances utilizing a couple cores each - all for no additional charge.
license.
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
December 17, 2007 at 5:59 am
Thanks, Andy.
I said it was quite a while since I'd visited this, didn't I! :blush: Your clarification is useful, though, so I'll store it up for when we revisit DB platforms for current apps or any major new purchases.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
December 17, 2007 at 6:58 am
I can't see many customers moving off an ERP or CRM system that's running on Oracle to SQL Server.
Very true. Those guys presumably also already have there license figured out. However new installations will weigh not only cost vs cost but restriction vs restriction and complexity issues and that could well be a deal maker.
jay
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
December 17, 2007 at 8:15 am
Andy Leonard (12/17/2007)
...* My understanding of this: Microsoft allows you to install as many instances of SQL Server on a single box as you desire. For example: If you purchase a 4-chip license for SQL Server 2005 (or 2008 - I believe they're the same price) Enterprise and the server is built with four quad-core processors, you can install a couple larger instances and set processor affinity to utilize 4 cores each, then install a couple more smaller instances utilizing a couple cores each - all for no additional charge.
It depends on the version of SQL Server. Technically (I studied this earlier this year) if you're running SS 2000 Standard Edition, if I recall correctly you have to have a license for each named instance. If you're running Enterprise 2000, you can have an unlimited number of instances on the same server with no change in licensing.
I also looked at the licensing requirements for 2K5 but I don't recall them off-hand.
I believe that you also get licenses for development through certain MS subscriptions, but I have no specifics on that.
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
December 17, 2007 at 8:19 am
My current employer made just such a jump. Their ERP system was on an AS/400 box running Oracle, so was their GIS and Permits system (the latter two on Dell servers). The ERP was a horrible system that was designed for universities, and poorly at that. It's now on SQL Server, as is the GIS. The Permits is in Access and we're in the process of migrating it into our ERP system, though I'll be converting it and the old Oracle data for it into a SQL Server DB for historic lookup purposes.
The cool thing about our Permits conversion is that we're not converting data! All new data goes into ERP, all old data will be closed out in Access. WHEE! Happy day! That's going to save so much hassle!
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
December 17, 2007 at 8:23 am
I'm not a licensing expert, and I'd like to get more clarification, however with 2K, you got a license for Personal Edition, so on every developer's machine, if you had a CAL. I think that for 2K5, you do need to pony up the $50 for that. For test machines, I agree it can be an issue, and I hadn't thought about that.
It's definitely a place I think Microsoft could do well in attacking Oracle. For many installations, meaning a dozen companies I've worked with, I see no reason to choose Oracle or DB2 over SQL Server. The converse is also true, but none of the systems were approaching the limits of SQL Server.
December 17, 2007 at 9:36 am
Recently I spoke with one of the Oracle Developers I know and asked him why are Oracle people so sold out to the product and act as if they will never change? His response was about speed with huge data bases and complex queries.
But when I asked about the cost of ownership, he took a turn. It sounded tome that the soft spot in the Oracle area is not performance nor is it usability, but cost and how the licenses for this product and that product adds cost. At one point he said that they had a tool that added no value but it made a few things easier to read, but still cost thousands of dollars.
Oracle has to have the cash from database revenue because the product line is very thin in comparison to Microsoft. MS SQL appears to have taken market share from Oracle and is still attempting to take more. This strategy could be interesting.
Bottom line if you have two products that both will do the job with reasonable execution time, and one costs less then half the other the decision is not that hard to make. I know about investment in a database and the cost of conversion. But still cost drives the bus not preference of the DBA. It is a hard life but if the bottom line is to make money the DBA can be replaced if they will not retrain.
Apologies for being so direct but profit is the goal and we have to live with that.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
December 17, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Well another advantage is that DB2 Server can run on both Windows, Unix, and Linux. I guess the sames goes for Oracle. As far as I can recall Microsoft SQL Server cannot run natively on Unix or Linux. It is still strictly for Microsoft Windows. Some corporations still run under a Unix OS. In which case DB2 and Oracle will still be the winners in that area.
December 17, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Wayne West (12/17/2007)
It depends on the version of SQL Server. Technically (I studied this earlier this year) if you're running SS 2000 Standard Edition, if I recall correctly you have to have a license for each named instance. If you're running Enterprise 2000, you can have an unlimited number of instances on the same server with no change in licensing.I also looked at the licensing requirements for 2K5 but I don't recall them off-hand.
I believe that you also get licenses for development through certain MS subscriptions, but I have no specifics on that.
The multi instance thing isn't true any more for SQL2005. Meaning - you can run multiple instances for no extra licensing under workgroup, standard and enterprise editions as long as you're dealing with a single OS instance. Different rules apply under VM's - but suffice it to say that if you license for all physical procs under Enterprise, you only need ONE copy of enterprise edition for all instance over all VM's (standard/WG needs to be licensed for each logical processor that VM sees.)
Developer Edition is licensed per tester seat - somewhere around 40-50$/per. That license covers any server components you want installed (again - not in a production setting).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on my part...unless you're my manager...or a director and above...or a really loud-spoken end-user..All right - what was my emergency again?
December 18, 2007 at 3:19 am
Our main business and finance system is making the Oracle to SQL Server 2005 jump in order to get off unix as the costs of replacing and maintaining the unix-oracle boxes are higher than getting windows servers and converting. We're already a Microsoft shop for everything else so the learning curve is low - apart from the three Oracle dba's and report writer being re-trained.
On the minus side it looks like they'll take my DBA role on as they'll have less to do once the sql version is running. I'll then have to do just the .NET development side and SSIS and small databases 🙁
December 19, 2007 at 12:49 pm
majorbloodnock (12/17/2007)
I'm a little rusty on licensing options now, since it's a while since I had that particular responsibility in my current company. However, last time I made a comparison, the water was muddied quite a bit based on the whole area of development environments.At that point, Oracle charged quite a bit per processor for any production installation, whilst SQL Server was far cheaper, but required licenses for every installation. Given any of our mainstream applications have a production, test, development and (usually) at least one sandpit environment, that means SQL Server had to be less than a quarter of the per processor price of Oracle to be fiscally competitive. And that, of course, was before we took into account the high-volume capabilities of different platforms (the gap's closing, but at that point Solaris provided a clear advantage, effectively ruling out SQL Server at the first hurdle).
Now, if MS moved to a Production Instances Only licensing model, that'd really be something to think about.
Not quite. With each MSDN dev seat you get accesss to OS's and Server licenses for dev/test. The cavat here is that those installs are only used for dev/test. So, you buy your testers and dev folk MSDN seats and your licensing issues are mute. Also, they get the added advantage of the MSDN resources.
December 20, 2007 at 1:46 am
Meredith Ryan (12/19/2007)
majorbloodnock (12/17/2007)
I'm a little rusty on licensing options now, since it's a while since I had that particular responsibility in my current company. However, last time I made a comparison, the water was muddied quite a bit based on the whole area of development environments.At that point, Oracle charged quite a bit per processor for any production installation, whilst SQL Server was far cheaper, but required licenses for every installation. Given any of our mainstream applications have a production, test, development and (usually) at least one sandpit environment, that means SQL Server had to be less than a quarter of the per processor price of Oracle to be fiscally competitive. And that, of course, was before we took into account the high-volume capabilities of different platforms (the gap's closing, but at that point Solaris provided a clear advantage, effectively ruling out SQL Server at the first hurdle).
Now, if MS moved to a Production Instances Only licensing model, that'd really be something to think about.
Not quite. With each MSDN dev seat you get accesss to OS's and Server licenses for dev/test. The cavat here is that those installs are only used for dev/test. So, you buy your testers and dev folk MSDN seats and your licensing issues are mute. Also, they get the added advantage of the MSDN resources.
Thanks, Meredith. That makes a lot of sense, and clarifies well.
However, and it's a big however, it's got me thinking - dangerous at the best of times. What about test environments that are used for UAT? If your user testing base is a random selection of perhaps 50 or 100 from a potential audience of thousands, does that not still mean you have to buy a full SQL Server license for that box? Obviously this still doesn't make the situation as bad as it seemed in my first posting, but it feels like a cost that is, if not hidden, at least obfuscated. Or am I just being obtuse?
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
December 20, 2007 at 9:44 am
You do need to license that box that is involved in UAT. All other dev/test could be handled by MSDN seats, provided everyone that touches that box has a msdn seat and it is only used for dev/test
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply