Challenge: check my cost figures; SQL Server 2x Oracle??
-
OK, rumor had it that Oracle was the expensive gorilla and SQL server was the still-very-capable-yet-cheaper solution.
Check these figures for me, I think I am hallucinating (these are all retail prices, no discounts, from manufacturer's web sites):
For a fictional company that employs 1000 people to use a web application, authenticated, with a mid-size database backend. Assume 2 processors on the DB server with per-proc license model:
SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
$5,999 * 2 = $11,998
Windows 2003 Server R2 Standard Edition
$999 * 1 = $999
Windows OS Cals
$40 * 1000 = $40,000 (!)
Total: $52,997
Oh, need more RAM? OK:
SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
$5,999 * 2 = $11,998
Windows 2003 Server R2 Enterprise Edition
$3,999 * 1 = $3,999 (!!)
Windows OS Cals
$40 * 1000 = $40,000
Total $55,997 (!!!)
Big gorrilla DB would be more, right? RIGHT?
Oracle 10g Release 2 Standard Edition
$15,000 * 2 = $30,000
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
$1,499 * 1 = $1,499
Linux OS CALs (Imaginary. There are none.)
$0 0$0
Total $31,499
So, if by "more" one means "about 0.5 x" then yes, Oracle costs "more." The cost difference is so large that part of it could be put toward learning about Linux and how to deploy the other solution -- maybe one FTE for three months, full time.
Please tell me how I am wrong about this -- but using real license terms from the vendors, not commonly held notions about the licensing. I'm dying to know.
(I am not a troll, I'm a SQL Server DBA with indigestion over next year's budget.)
-
I was looking at the Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Web Site and found this:
Processor Licensing Model. Under this model, a license is required for each physical or virtual processor accessed by an operating system environment running SQL Server. This license does not require any device or user client access licenses (CALs).
Based on that, I think you can drop your Microsoft pricing by $40,000.
-
yup you're mixing cals and procs, note that you don't really gain much by putting sql std on ent w2k3 unless you're 64bit or running a non dedicated sql server.
I'm not sure but I though some o/s were also per proc? Note that under ms licensing a dual core proc only needs one license whereas I think you'll find Oracle costs more? as most servers are dual core now you should get even more value for money from microsoft.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/ -
I need to clarify one thing: I'm aware of the SQL server per-processor license type, and the language referenced above, and we've talked to MS directly. The issue, specifically, is that the per-processor license fee for SQL server appears to be only for the SQL Server service(s) and not the operating system. That means that the statement "This license does not require any device or user client access licenses (CALs)" really ought to read "This license does not require any device or SQL Server user client access licenses (CALs)," and that MS has not explained this clearly.
The operating system on which SQL server runs looks as if it's required to be licensed separately, per authenticated user that uses ANY service provided by the machine, including SQL Server. In an environment where there is a Windows domain encompassing all your users, then that OS license is probably "already paid for" (albeit through the nose) by the purchase of $40 user CALs for all users. Some companies probably just have that couple of hundred thousand as a base cost of doing business. However, in the context of a web application, it might well be that users don't have a Windows domain account -- and then apparently you're into server-side CALs for concurrent usage on each machine hosting a database. That would be in the $5,000 to $50,000 range, I think, to support any quantity of people.
I can find no exception other than the Web Edition OS (which won't work) -- so if anyone else can, I would be extremely, eternally grateful. But I need more than your word or impressions, I need a page from MS on the web that clearly states "the WINDOWS/OS CALs are not required in this scenario"
-
Colin -
If one wanted to dedicate over 4GB of RAM to SQL Server (maybe with 64 bit OS or using AWE) then isn't Windows Server 2003 EE required? Or can you run, say, 8GB RAM and AWE for SQL Server on Window Server 2003 Standard?
-
Windows Server 2003 Std limits you to 4 GB of RAM.
Enterprise Edition allows up to 32 GB of RAM for 32-bit OS.
Datacenter Edition allows up to 128 GB of RAM for 32-bit OS.
Standard x64 allows up to 32 GB of RAM.
Enterprise x64 and Datacenter x64 allow up to 1 TB of RAM.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/features/comparefeatures.mspx
-
Here is a bit of an equalizer perhaps...
MULTICORE
Multicore processors, which consist of multiple processing execution units or “cores” on one chip, are seen as a promising way to boost computing power. Microsoft has been driving thought leadership in this area by charging the same amount per processor, regardless of how many cores are in the processor. In contrast, Oracle asks customers to multiply each “core” by different factors depending on processor type. IBM has a dual policy where customers with x86 platforms are charged per processor and customers on IBM’s POWER5-based systems are charged per core.
Now, that therotically cuts the CPU cost in half... wait until we get 8 cores, which has been promised. of course, they will probably change direction then.
But your pricing makes it pretty clear that you have to check the cost... and NEGOTIATE. Oracle posted prices can almost always be negotiated, at least for better (bigger) customers. They are also pretty good at helping you figure out exactly what you need vs. taking someone's word for it that you need a particular option.
Thank-you,
David Russell
Any Cloud, Any Database, Oracle since 1982 -
Valid point. Is this then a valid comparison for a dual proc/ dual core box with 8 GB RAM?:
Oracle 10g Release 2 Standard Edition
$15,000 * 4 = $60,000
Red Hat Enterprise Linux
$1,499 * 1 = $1,499
Linux OS CALs (Imaginary. There are none.)
$0 0 $0
Total $61,499
-- OR --
SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
$5,999 * 2 = $11,998
Windows 2003 Server R2 Enterprise Edition
$3,999 * 1 = $3,999
Windows OS Cals
$40 * 1000 = $40,000
Total $55,997
This tells me that the cost is roughly the same (ballpark, anyway).
-
Bummer it just ate my reply.
Anyway all I was going to mention was why not the 64bit version of srever 2003 standard with thee 64 bit version of sql server standard as they cost no extra and theoretically they can then address up to 8TB of Ram so no need for 2003 Enterprise Edition. (Well maybe depends if there's some other featue that requires it)
hth
David
-
The memory limit for 32bit ent w3k3 ( R2) is now 64Gb. Despite that you're still limited by the sql version too. 64bit sql 2005 std can adress unlimited memory but the 32bit can only use 2gb.
I still don't understand the cals in the calculation surely if you're licensing sql by cpu then you'll do the same with the o/s ( I admit I don't usually have much to do with licensing the o/s but I'm sure it works the same )
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/ -
The assertion that Oracle is cheaper works for a "green field" enterprise where there is no pre-existing investment in the MS architecture at both the server and the user levels. If, however, the 1000 users are already using and accustomed to MS apps on MS OS, then the economics of a conversion of those 1000 users from WIN to Linux must be reconsidered.
-
I must admit I struggled to understand the o/s licensing requirements. As Richard points out, in a ms environment you would already have cals for your users - most companies use the select agreement.
I'm still not sure what license is required for the o/s where say the server is a pure server in isolation - e.g. clients access web server to sql server - thus users never access the o/s as they could actually be running on apples or even linux clients through the web and would never directly connect as users to the underlying servers being all load balanced etc. etc.
so if your users are using office and file and print they would have a cal already ? btw my understanding is that IT costs are mainly in support rather than cals. It's an interesting thread but I'm not 100% sure of its value, for as Richard says, you'd be deploying presumably to an existing site which would be one platform or another.
[font="Comic Sans MS"]The GrumpyOldDBA[/font]
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/ -
I guess that is key: this is a web application, not typical office workers using a suite of network services. Being a web application, the notion of platform at the workstation does not apply (it's Windows, and would remain Windows, and the users use IE to access the web application). The impact is purely server-side, and there might be no end-user change or retraining.
So in a scenario where you already have CALs, then the cost of SQL Server is an incremental one (adding that to the base of what you already have and already have spent) but in a case where either you are starting from scratch or you never needed CALs (the web app) then it's not incremental, but you have to shell out the entire sum for CALs and server and SQL server.
While this case is somewhat unique, I have a feeling that there are many companies out there that are in a similar situation, and many are probably not actually in compliance with the licensing rules.
And I still wonder about a forum service: users do authenticate, so by the letter of the EULA's I am looking at, it seems like you'd have to have the "external connector license" atop the cost of the server OS and SQL server license(s), or run purely on Web Edition of the OS with its limitations.
-
"I'm still not sure what license is required for the o/s where say the server is a pure server in isolation - e.g. clients access web server to sql server - thus users never access the o/s as they could actually be running on apples or even linux clients through the web..."
Colin, the answer to that, as far as I can tell, is this:
A. IF users are anonymous an do not authenticate, then a CAL isn't required. People can browse your web site anonymously and you don't have to pay. Huzzah!.
B. IF you run only Win 2003 Web Edition and Express, then the system is exempt. Lovely, for little stuff.
But, for Win 2003 Server (any flavor non-Web-edition):
C. IF users are employees of the company and authenticate with any method, then a CAL of some type is required for each. For the purposes of this discussion a user is defined as a "warm body" -- that is, any human being clicking a mouse at the other end of the network connection, where you know who that person is. A user who sits at her Mac and opens Safari and logs in to your server = one CAL. A user who sits at a Wintel PC / Linux / Commodore 64 / Sun Sparc / Atari 800 whatever, even if connected via an elaborate chain of firewall / load balancer / web server / pooled connection to the SQL server = one CAL.
D. If users are NOT employees, then instead you can buy an "external connector license" for the box. But you do have to have one, and they are not cheap.
Again, I am NOT by any means a licensing expert, and this is my interpretation -- though well researched. [Insert disclaimer here, I might well be wrong (and let's all hope I am).]
Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply