I am not expert at either but yeah I believe Oracle's PDB's provide a ton
of more features and options than MSSQL. I think they really only similar
in the fact that MSSQL has the System Databases (master, model, msdb,
tempdb) which can be considered similar to the CDB concept. And another
comparison is that you can take a backup from SQL and restore it to another
server database. Even from 2012 to 2016, super simple. Just like plugable
databases.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 10:32 AM MacGregor, Ian A. <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I personally was hesitant to move to a new version of the database and to
switch to a new architecture at the same time. We have stayed with the
non-cdb architecture.
I remember a panel discussion when multi tenancy was first introduced
which responded to the question of why MSSQL had "the same thing for
free". with you really cannot compare the two, imitating the MSSQL
approach to multitenancy was inferior.
How do they differ?
Ian A. MacGregor
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
------------------------------
*From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on
behalf of Jeff Chirco <backseatdba@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Thursday, August 30, 2018 9:41 AM
*To:* oracle-l-freelist
*Subject:* Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
I'ved asked this question over the last couple year to various consultants
and I think on here once. It seemed like the majority of response I got
where that people where still doing the non-CDB traditional install in
Production. I went with traditional install for a few reasons
1. In the beginning of testing NetApp storage snaps didn't support PDBs or
12.2. They do now
2. I wanted to go to 12c quicker than taking the time to learn multitenancy
3. Plus we are migrating from Windows to Linux and 11.2.0.4 to 12.2.01 at
the same time so wanted to limit the amount of things changing and learning
at once.
4. We have 4 databases running on this one server and I just though it was
silly to have 4 CDBs with 1 PDB each. Maybe this isn't, I don't know.
I really feel that Multitenancy should be included at no cost. If they
want to de-support traditional install and force us this route it should be
included. Like someone said MSSQL already has this. Or drop the price.
$17,500 per cpu is crazy. If they want use to use it and promote it, it
needs to be included or cheap enough that it is a no-brainier.
Jeff
On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:25 PM Juan Miranda <jmirandavigo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Totally agree.
More cost and more complex administration; just what we need.
-----Mensaje original-----
De: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
En nombre de Mladen Gogala
Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de agosto de 2018 17:11
Para: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Asunto: Re: Create 12c or 18c database in traditional architecture
Hi Neil!
Multi-tenant doesn't make any sense because the resources it will save
are much, much cheaper than the cost of the multi-tenant option. Also,
the competitors (DB2, SQL Server, SAP Hana) are all allowing creation of
additional databases for free. I don't see why would I need to pay for
the same feature with Oracle?
Regards
On 08/29/2018 09:23 AM, Neil Chandler wrote:
Personally I think multi-tenant a decent feature but it is cost
prohibitive for what you get in return.
--
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
Tel: (347) 321-1217
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
