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 123»»»

Better Licensing Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Sunday, December 16, 2007 11:55 PM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 10:57 AM
Points: 33,268, Visits: 15,438
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Better Licensing






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #433790
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 3:44 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:14 AM
Points: 1,049, Visits: 3,007
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, sumus solum profundum variat
Post #433824
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 5:51 AM


Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:49 PM
Points: 389, Visits: 1,042
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
CSO, Linchpin People
Follow me on Twitter: @AndyLeonard
Post #433844
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 5:59 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, September 12, 2014 7:14 AM
Points: 1,049, Visits: 3,007
Thanks, Andy.

I said it was quite a while since I'd visited this, didn't I! 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, sumus solum profundum variat
Post #433846
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 6:58 AM
Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 8:37 AM
Points: 751, Visits: 1,917
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 --
Post #433854
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 8:15 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:26 AM
Points: 891, Visits: 1,958
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.
Post #433888
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 8:19 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 9, 2012 10:26 AM
Points: 891, Visits: 1,958
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!
Post #433891
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 8:23 AM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 10:57 AM
Points: 33,268, Visits: 15,438
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.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #433896
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 9:36 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 12:00 PM
Points: 2,332, Visits: 1,390
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!
Post #433940
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 10:00 PM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:52 PM
Points: 71, Visits: 250
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.


Post #434137
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse