RE: Oracle alternatives
- From: "Goulet, Dick" <DGoulet@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <cmarquez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Oracle-L Freelists" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 12:57:43 -0400
Chris,
Right now I have PostGreSql on a 4 way server & it's consuming
all 4 processors as needed. The limit is not PostGreSql, but the
version of the OS your running. Also we had Oracle in here just a week
ago & they did say, very clearly, that Standard Edition One is
restricted to 2 cpu's and user based licensing. Now I highly doubt that
it won't run on a 4-way & use all of the processors, but come audit time
you'll be in a pickle. Believe me on that one, BTDT still hurts. Long
story though. The MAJOR problem I am having, which IS causing the Open
Source revolution to hit home is the companies constant push to "reduce
cost". Like you I've tried hard to make the case to not turn a cold
shoulder on the rdbms that is currently holding our corporate data &
will for the foreseeable future. But with new applications coming on
line, especially those facing the WEB, cheaper solutions are the
mandate. And as of right now PostGreSql is the cheaper, supportable,
solution that is going in. It's a damned shame, but sometimes managers
only see dollar signs.
Now to Oracle's credit/discredit they, namely Larry Ellison
himself, brought up the idea of "site licensing" some time ago but
failed to make anything creditable out of it yet. =20
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marquez, Chris
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:29 PM
To: Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: RE: Oracle alternatives
Dick,
I don't think I missed the point, Open Source is a real viable option.
As an Oracle DBA I get sick of hearing people say;
"Oracle is always more expensive, lets talk about free stuff".
My point is your article and comments have validity, but not based on
price for the level of the offering.
>> "Now I'm not saying that PostGreSql is a replacement for Oracle, but
>> it's gotten to the point where one really needs to take a careful
look"
If it is not a replacement *and* I can use Oracle supported for the same
price, what's the advantage?
Let me ask you because I don't know...How many CPU's can PostGreSql take
true scalability advantage off?
More importantly, How many PostGreSql users run PostGreSql on more than
2 CPU's (even if it can)?
My guess is not the majority. If I'm correct than telling me that
Oracle low end option is "restricted to 2 cpu's" is not a restriction at
all, but rather a fair comparison.
>>even the commodity priced Intel boxes are sporting more than 2.
Yes, but consider this. Dell one of the largest providers of Intel
server ships, by far, most of thier server configured as two CPU
boxes...that is a known fact.
Plus they have sold more the any vendor the most pre-configured 2 CPU +
Oracle servers than anyone.
And just recently Dell said the are considering getting "back in" to the
4-way market.
My point is, there is a very real active low-end hardware and software
market and Oracle can complete...offer more and be less expense.
The cost factor when you include support, in an Open Source vs.
Commercial Database Software discussion holds no water.
Again refer to each vendors own sales web site.
I too have worked for organization that had Million dollar Oracle
budget, but they had the business that could pay for and demanded that
level of service and support. This same organization had a
signification "production" problem with an Open Source web server (not
Apache) for which the could NOT pay for support and only had the email
address for some developers.
Take a guess as to what the discussion was on the morning after...it was
not about getting another free web server.
I'm not bashing the free web server...that is not the point...that point
is they real didn't want or need "free"...the needed and wanted a
product that worked (for them)...a product that came with support.
People pay when the are in pain, or they foresee pain...the more pain
they are in, the more they will pay...and not having the ability to pay,
might be the most painful of all.
>> The key point is "True, Oracle has a lot more to it, but open source
is catching up".
>> And their catching up FAST. So fast that to not consider them is no
longer becoming an option.
I couldn't agree more...this is the story and reality of Linux, but
running and supporting Linux is hardly free.
>> Sorry you can't use Standard Edition One any more.
>> Nor can you CPU license it for deployment to the Internet.
You have a reference for this, as this is not what our Oracle sales rep
told us just 12 months ago.
>> As my CIO has said, we're coming into a time when software will
become a commodity item.
>> And commodity items do not command the large dollars in either
acquisition or support costs.
Yes, but consider this. "commodity item's" can often be thrown
away...they are deposable.
Years of vital corporate information is not a "commodity item" and thus
those that values there data spend significant money to support that
data.
So even if the software is free, when the time comes, not "if" but
"when", the time comes for voluntary or involuntary change, someone will
pay someone else.
Years ago I bought an Palm handheld. They guy at BestBuy ask if I
wanted a "support" warranty.
I told him he seemed to be confusing my desire to backup and restore my
data with the need or ability to buy another "commodity" Palm handheld.
The Palm handheld is a "commodity", but my personal data would be
difficult to reproduce.
Chris Marquez
Oracle DBA
-----Original Message-----
From: Goulet, Dick [mailto:DGoulet@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thu 5/5/2005 10:36 AM
To: Marquez, Chris; Oracle-L Freelists
Subject: RE: Oracle alternatives
=20
Chris,
You did a wonderful job of zeroing in on one portion of the
article & missed the main point by a country mile. If you'll re-read
the article you'll see:
"Of course there's more to licensing Oracle than that and I could go on
and on about that"=20
And:
"Now I'm not saying that PostGreSql is a replacement for Oracle, but
it's gotten to the point where one really needs to take a careful look"
Yes acquisition cost, or sticker shock, is a reality with the closed
source world and that is driving a lot of folks to alternatives, and yes
I probably ranted too much on that point. But that one sticky point is
having an enormous impact on my working life at the moment. The key
point is "True, Oracle has a lot more to it, but open source is catching
up". And their catching up FAST. So fast that to not consider them is
no longer becoming an option. Also the cost of hardware is dropping
equally as fast such that the initial cost of software is now popping
out as a greater significant factor. Oh yes, you can acquire Standard
Edition One for the same cost as the server, but now your restricted to
2 cpu's. or cores, when even the commodity priced Intel boxes are
sporting more than 2. Sorry you can't use Standard Edition One any
more. Nor can you CPU license it for deployment to the Internet. And
Yes Support is becoming everyone's, save for MicroSlop, cash cow. We're
paying over $100K per year to Oracle for support. Support for
PostGreSql is going to cost us about $10K no matter how many servers and
data bases there are. And there is a mailing list with the developers
of PostGreSql on it who are just as helpful as OTS, even more so in some
cases not to mention that LazyDba has added MySql, FireBird, and
PostGreSql to their discussions. And patches/upgrades are readily
available from www.postgresql.org. All in all a better, though I'll
give not idyllic equivalent.
As my CIO has said, we're coming into a time when software will become a
commodity item. And commodity items do not command the large dollars in
either acquisition or support costs. Take a serious look at that laptop
or PC your working at. It's a commodity nowadays. Software is just
around the corner & I'm afraid that Open Source is leading the way.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
