Re: How to convince my customer to use SQL2005 instaed of Oracle10g

Hmm, the old Sql versus Oracle debate. This has been at tac-tic-toe
like debating stalemate for years. Performance, Reliability,
Availability, and Security can be debate from differing angles and
points of view; at the end each side claims victory. The problem is,
its hard to get and apple-to-apple comparison due to wide variety in
hardware (this may impact performance more than the RDMS platform), OS
platforms, and incomparable features between the RDMS. At the end,
there may be no clear winner due to the blurring of the issues with
multitudes of academic caveats and nuances.

From my experience, sizing a Sql Server system for 200 users and
database size not to exceed 300Gb is easily achievable. Also, I think
you mentioned that your current system is on the Sql platform, so a
migration to Sql 2005 would be direct & straight forward, quick, and
low risk. Most organizations would have a hard-time justifying the $$
to change technology in mid-stream unless there is a real bias for the
UNIX-Oracle combo or the current solution is not working.

If I were you I would focus one SQL Server 2005 clearest advantages
over Oracle, i.e. its cost, this can have a whiplash-head turning
affect on management. There are many white papers out there on SQL
Server's TCO and ROI.

Here are a few did you knows:
MS SQL's licensing is by the processor (not the core) were
Oracle's is by the core. So for a 4 processor quad-core, for SQL you
would need a 4 processor license but for Oracle you would need a 16
processor license.

You mentioned Availability, so I assume your looking into HA (high
availability).

With SQL Standard you get most of the full HA feature set (mirroring
without auto failover and 2-node MSCS clustering). Although Oracle has
the DataGuard (similar to ms mirroring) and Fail Safe (only on windows
and uses MSCS), their HA flagship is the Oracle 10G RAC (it also has
horizontal scale out functionality). The 10G RAC is only available on
the Enterprise version and there is an ~ 50% additional cost for
licensing the RAC feature. Also, the RAC is so difficult to setup and
admin, the majority of the Oracle DBA population can't support the
feature. MS Sql does not charge for additional licenses for the
passive/standby nodes were Oracle does.

If you want to read a really good and spirited debate on the cost
advantages between Sql and Oracle check-out Tony Rogerson's taking on
of the Oracle user group (Google search: "Tony Rogerson" "Oracle
licence question"). I think he is quite effective and makes many
excellent points; I find the thread assuming and very entertaining:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.oracle.server/browse_frm/thread/e272c9314c2f0e22/643046c269325a85?lnk=st&q=%22Tony+Rogerson%22+%22Oracle+licence+question%22&rnum=1&hl=en#643046c269325a85

Mike C# wrote:
Sounds like the customer wants what the customer wants... Although SQL
Server could probably easily handle the requirements you gave, instead of
trying to convert them to something they've said they don't want, maybe you
could use this as an opportunity to create an Oracle version of your app and
expand your client base. If they're willing to "underwrite" the conversion
of your app, why not...? They may have other considerations besides your
particular application which makes them want to use Oracle instead of SQL
Server as well.

"jcvoon" <jiangchnan.voon@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166842183.224352.267630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Our application is design for SQL server, and it is already exists for
more than 8 years, it is so complicated and consist of so many modules,
so it is a bit risky for us to convert it to Oracle. Since our customer
size is not so big (about 200 users and the estimate database size will
not exceed 300Gb) SQL server should fit their need. Unfortunately they
insist to use Oracle and our skill set is on SQL server so i need an
advice to convince them to use SQL server.

I'm not familiar with Oracle, the only thing I know that SQL server is
better than Oracle are:
- Easy to install
- Easy to administrate
- Easy to maintain
- Good UI
- Auto tuning
- Come with a lot of extra tools like SSIS, SSAS, SSRS

But in terms of Performance, Reliability, Availability, Security how
good is SQL server compare with Oracle ?

Please advice.

Thanks
JCVoon


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IOT, memory and transaction time
    ... What is a better way of structuring this SQL for Oracle? ... Oracle expertise available at the moment but certainly SQL Server ... Server uses dynamic memory allocation whereas Oracle, in our tests, ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.misc)
  • Re: SQL -> Oracle
    ... > 2- extracted all my SQL queries in one single file (that was the tedious ... > 3- now whenever I need new query. ... > - Sybase and SQL server prefix their parameters with '@' ... > - Firebird and Oracle have selectable stored procedures so you use them ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Limit of 1050 columns for ANSI joins
    ... comprehensive than Oracle SQL. ... I'm trying not to have any auto-generated SQL on my system, ... Index your schema properly and think about the proper design. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.server)
  • Re: I cant find a SETUP.EXE in the SQL Plus Client ??
    ... someone else's server for testing some SELECT statements I'm ... free client because I don't own the Oracle license. ... SQL statements. ... There is no documentation with that download. ...
    (comp.databases.oracle.tools)
  • Re: How to convince my customer to use SQL2005 instaed of Oracle10g
    ... migration to Sql 2005 would be direct & straight forward, quick, and ... If I were you I would focus one SQL Server 2005 clearest advantages ... would need a 4 processor license but for Oracle you would need a 16 ... You mentioned Availability, so I assume your looking into HA (high ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver)