January 19, 2015 at 8:04 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item The Cost of Switching
January 20, 2015 at 1:16 am
I agree with Microsoft's recent behaviour it is only a matter of time.
I used to have access to the Design and Develop Action Pack via our Microsoft Partner Subscription. With the changes behind that, the related MSDN subscription (outside the US) no longer includes SQL Server 2014 Developer Edition.
January 20, 2015 at 3:04 am
I have an estate of 210 SQL Server instances ranging from 2000 to 2012.
I would love to have HADR wherever it's needed but the cost of upgrading to 2012 is prohibitive, let alone going to Enterprise edition.
DBA (Dogsbody with Bad Attitude)
January 20, 2015 at 6:52 am
Neither we or our clients can afford Enterprise licenses for decent hardware just to get decent security or partitioning. And we are being required to offer higher levels of security. So we either have to redesign the applications or consider alternatives.
My CEO hates being held hostage by SQL Server license costs. Our IT is already using Linux and numerous other OSS applications to reduce costs, PostgreSQL is looking like a good possibility. Good thing .NET is being Open Sourced and promoted as a cross platform solution.
Also SQL Server isn't on the list of solutions I use or recommend for most of my side projects or for any user group projects. It's an all or nothing career investment that's too costly for many.
January 20, 2015 at 7:15 am
We're on 2008 R2 Enterprise at my shop and we've cancelled plans to upgrade to 2012 because of the costs. Once Microsoft stops supporting 2008 R2 I believe we'll be looking for a different RDBMS. It's too bad because I love working in SQL Server, but $26K for a database license just doesn't work for a small business with ~50 employees.
January 20, 2015 at 7:16 am
Having looked into the cost of going from SQL Server 2005 to 2012, PostgreSQL is looking mighty good right about now.
I figure we'd be paying the cost either way - either the dollars to purchase 2012 or in terms of the time necessary to learn and migrate everything over. The second option gives more flexibility as Steve pointed out and simultaneously polishes the resume a bit.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
January 20, 2015 at 7:21 am
I know it must be difficult for Microsoft's accounting and marketing department to decide what features to include in each edition, and it's also difficult for an organization to decide which edition will be good fit not only today but three years down the road. Perhaps instead of editions, Microsoft could provide a base entry level feature set for SQL Server at a very competitive price, and then they license another 20 features seperately or "a la carte" with a yearly renewal subscription.
In the end, the price the organization would be paying may be the same, but the feature set would be customized for their specific needs. Also, they could easily add or drop features from one year to the next, if for example they initially thoguht they would leverage SSIS but later decide to go with another ETL tool.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 20, 2015 at 7:33 am
I really think SQL Server isn't bad actual value.. We get SSIS, SSAS and SSRS all in standard.
But bojemoi! over 100k for an Enterprise cluster... Even on mission critical sites, my board won't authorise that for software.
DBA (Dogsbody with Bad Attitude)
January 20, 2015 at 8:12 am
Totally agree. My company is in the process of migrating our application to Postgresql largely because of the enterprise licensing costs growing so substantially. Additionally we have stayed back at SQL Server 2008 to avoid these costs.
Russ
January 20, 2015 at 8:50 am
I'm sure the folks in Microsofts accounting department took Econ 101 while in university. If enterprise level customers keep switching to other database platforms primarily on the basis of SQL Server Enterprise Edition licensing costs, then I expect we'll see changes to that in near future. In the meantime, keep letting them know why you're switching.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 20, 2015 at 8:53 am
We have a number of Sql 2008 and Sql 2012 Enterprise installations, but I recently saw our company take some serious steps towards Linux/Python/Java/DB2.
We have huge mix of platforms due to numerous acquisitions -- Oracle, Sql Server, DB2, Mysql, PostGres and Mongo. I don't know if the move towards DB2 is really cost-related, or the old worry that Sql Server is a "toy" that won't scale, or just what an older CIO is familiar with.
January 20, 2015 at 9:01 am
Indianrock (1/20/2015)
We have a number of Sql 2008 and Sql 2012 Enterprise installations, but I recently saw our company take some serious steps towards Linux/Python/Java/DB2.We have huge mix of platforms due to numerous acquisitions -- Oracle, Sql Server, DB2, Mysql, PostGres and Mongo. I don't know if the move towards DB2 is really cost-related, or the old worry that Sql Server is a "toy" that won't scale, or just what an older CIO is familiar with.
It would be intersting to see whether a polygot enterprise platform, where each department or team choses the tool or database they think is a best fit for their project, whether this saves the organization money and makes them more efficient, or if they ultimately end up spending more money on staff, training, maintenance, integration, and management.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 20, 2015 at 9:01 am
SQL Server is seen as the Moose, though it is not going anywhere soon. SSIS development is out the door. When you pair a platform down to using only it's core component then yes it's expensive, even for Standard Edition. Everything is moving to NoSQL. Why keep something when you are not leveraging it's capacities.
The thing that bothers me about NoSQL is that the cost of development hours is largely ignored. From my view point FREE and OPEN SOURCE translates into more hours spent in development. Most of the time it is to create the same functionality that already exists.
Microsoft does need to do something, drop Standard, drop the price. And this whole thing with Software Assurance is ridiculous. You have to wonder how much it costs to maintain multiple editions. They need to tout the time saved in using their suite of software as compared to other alternatives.
January 20, 2015 at 9:09 am
An Enterprise license for SQL Server can cost 100k to upgrade, but each full time DBA or developer on staff costs 100k per year, even if they're working with a "free" open source platform. Any decision that results in adding more staff will increase operational costs for the department. Yes, it [might] increase revenue too, depending on how you capitalize and manage them, but human resources costs is a given, just like licensing costs.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 20, 2015 at 9:13 am
"everything is moving to NoSql" ??
Isn't it true generally that DBAs and developers on many non-microsoft platforms are more expensive ( and possibly harder to find ) ?
Another cost we incurred was losing experienced Sql Servr DBAs and .Net developers almost immediately upon announcing a move to DB2/Linux, etc. It may take years to migrate an application to the new platforms and in the mean time you lose support for the existing product that is actually paying the bills. Customers still want application enhancements -- they aren't putting that on hold for 3 years until the new application is rolled out.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 54 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply