Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««12

SQL Server 2012 Insane Licensing Price! Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, May 19, 2014 12:26 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:53 PM
Points: 35,366, Visits: 31,905
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
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1572419
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 6:41 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:22 AM
Points: 1,602, Visits: 5,654
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.
Post #1572619
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:40 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:45 AM
Points: 4, Visits: 18
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




Post #1572660
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:51 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:22 AM
Points: 1,602, Visits: 5,654
I suspect both Jeff and I got the 200 user figure from the original post in this 18-month old thread you resurrected...
Post #1572670
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:45 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:45 AM
Points: 4, Visits: 18
Sounds about right - I'm usually about 18 months behind on most things
Post #1572842
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:38 PM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:07 PM
Points: 1,289, Visits: 2,843
The price certainly went up when they changed the pricing model for SQL2012. It certainly opens the door to other, less known RDBMS like MySQL and EnterpriseDB.

I know we are holding off upgrading as I cannot justify the massive $$ until we have to. The number of servers here would be a huge cost with very little bang for the buck at all.



Post #1572876
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse