SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


What Differentiates Enterprise?


What Differentiates Enterprise?

Author
Message
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)SSC Guru (64K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 64589 Visits: 19118
Comments posted to this topic are about the item What Differentiates Enterprise?

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
milton.behrendorff
milton.behrendorff
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)Forum Newbie (2 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2 Visits: 42
Hi,

What a timely topic. Only yesterday I was reviewing licencing of SQL Server. I have many small clients (some of which only install SQL Server because our product requires it). A major issue of mine is to get these clients to upgrade (have clients still on SQL Standard 2000). All they see is that they have bought SQL Server (obviously several years ago) and now I am asking them to replace (not even upgrade) one working version with the new model for $5000+. Hard to get them to see the benefits (yes I tell them it faster etc) and to spend the money.

The databases (3 for each client) are from 100 MB to 20 GB (so not large with 5000000 rows in one of the tables). This table is also joined to other tables to return a report which can be quiet slow (30sec+) and partitioning of this table that SQL 2008 Enterprise allows would be fantastic for this as most of the queries only require information from the last few days/weeks.

I would really like to see a model where I could pay to run these small sites on a single or dual core and limited ram for a price that would entice my clients to upgrade.

SQL Express would nearly do the job for most of my small clients but I have found its performance is somehow "restricted" and does not return queried information as quickly as SQL Standard for whatever reason. Anyone got any comments on that issue?

Simplifying the licencing within a VM environment would also be appreciated.

Milton
John.Sansom
John.Sansom
SSC Eights!
SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)SSC Eights! (835 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 835 Visits: 1558
Hi Milton,

Perhaps you should look into the feasibility of "hosting" the application yourself, Software As A Service(SAAS) in the Cloud using SQLAzure for example. This way you have the option to control the hardware environment specifications/performance across the board or specifically on a per client basis should you choose. Your clients can subscribe to a "level" of your service that is appropriate for them.


John Sansom (@sqlBrit) | www.johnsansom.com
arapaima_uk
arapaima_uk
SSC Rookie
SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)SSC Rookie (46 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 46 Visits: 395
It is all a little arbitrary; log shipping was particularly silly since you could either write the scripts yourself or just copy them from an EE installation. Compression was also an odd one - think this might be more use to small customers than big ones, but it was (is?) an EE only feature.

I agree that a simple per-core model would be simpler - we are presently facing tradeoff between buying Datacenter Edition so we can run a bunch of VMs on the box, or individual licences for all of our smaller VMs e.g. SSRS only instances.

On this, it might also be an idea to licence SSRS, SSAS, etc. separately, though I realise this is proceeding down the Oracle path.
paul.knibbs
paul.knibbs
SSCrazy
SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)SSCrazy (2.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2607 Visits: 6232
I disagree here. Licensing per core is all well and good, but you might well end up paying to license a feature you don't want and never use! I'd rather see some sort of system where, rather than have fixed "editions" of the product, you just pay for the bits you need.
Richard Gardner-291039
Richard Gardner-291039
SSC-Addicted
SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)SSC-Addicted (431 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 431 Visits: 421
Hmmm... I don't think this is going to resolve anything, is it?

My main gripe is one of chickens and eggs, for prototyping a months trial is not long enough to test and demonstrate features only available in the enterprise edition, so we learn to live without them.

When the business arguments for these features become fully apparent it can be at the expense of the project itself (why throw more money at this, it's useless).

So to my mind Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot a little, certainly a full feature set on the basic edition linked to some kind of scalable licencing would make adoption of enterprise features far more likely in our organisation.
Craig Purnell
Craig Purnell
Old Hand
Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)Old Hand (332 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 332 Visits: 526
FYI - Compression is now available in Standard Edition in R2 - yay!

One thing that annoys me is that SSRS consumes a whole license if you put it on it's own box. I consider it a best practice to isolate SSRS from the core engine for performance reasons. I think licensing SSRS separately would make sense. Also, I have been burned many times where I install Standard and then 6 months later go to use some feature and it's not allowed because you are running Standard.

We are heavy users of async mirroring so we typically install Enterprise most of the time.



blandry
blandry
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (527 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 527 Visits: 723
I think you gave the best answer to the general question right in your editorial...

"In my mind, I'd like to see SQL Server priced on scale, and not on features..."

What differentiates an Enterprise IS scale! Hence, it seems silly to arrange pricing and licensing any other way. This should be the case not only for SQL Server, but for all products that want to approach the market this way. As it is right now, we run into many clients who not only don't understand the differences between versions, but even those who do can't figure out why this is done as it is.

SQL Server is kind of unique in this way because, more than any other MS product, scale is highly important - but we are seeing Windows 7 cause a great deal of confusion in the marketplace due to these different versions. The same was true with Vista although thankfully, it had very low business market penetration.

Scale seems to me to be the most obvious factor in differentiating versions, especially in the case of any RDBMS. Unfortunately, I think the differing versions in other products (OS's, Office, etc.) is simply a gimmick - and its a gimmick we don't really need in the marketplace.

There's no such thing as dumb questions, only poorly thought-out answers...
Gene Tuttle
Gene Tuttle
Valued Member
Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)Valued Member (74 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 74 Visits: 210
I think it would be in Microsoft's best interest to provide all the features and change the levels to limit on number of CPU or amount of memory. This would allow the skill level and pool of talent to grow around the product. If there are more people who know the product, Microsoft will sell more product. It becomes a feedback loop that will continue to grow.
chrisfradenburg
chrisfradenburg
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)SSCommitted (2K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1994 Visits: 2067
paul.knibbs (3/25/2011)
I disagree here. Licensing per core is all well and good, but you might well end up paying to license a feature you don't want and never use! I'd rather see some sort of system where, rather than have fixed "editions" of the product, you just pay for the bits you need.


This then becomes fighting for any feature that's useful which I'm sure can be a very painful process. Right now the argument could be that clustering is needed and partition is very useful so by going to a higher edition we get both. If you had to pay for each feature you're more likely not to get partitioning because only clustering is really needed so management shoots down one.
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search