On 01/10/06, Sandra Becker <sbecker6925@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My boss believes that if Oracle can't come down in price to that of SQL Server, we should just switch. I have never used SQL Server so I had nothing to draw on other than what I've heard. We're a small company with limited financial resources, but I believe the decision should be based on more than strictly price. To that end I have three questions.
1. Is there an article comparing either 9i or 10g (currently on 9i Standard One Edition preparing to migrate to 10g Standard Edition) with SQL Server 2005? We run on RHEL3 and will be moving to RHEL4 within then next month or so on a Dell 64 bit dual core server. I have reviewed the articles mentioned on Tom Kyte's website, but nothing did a comparison of Oracle and SQL Server 2005, which is the release my boss is considering.
If you're using Linux then you cannot use SQLServer, it only runs on Windows! This could be a consideration if you don't already have a Windows Server estate. Not just the costs of procuring the hardware and OS but also the costs of hiring training up Windows sysadmins (being able to admin Windows desktops is a start on admining Windows server products but only a slight one, it's a very different ball game).
I've not seen much information comparing Oracle 9i/10g vs SQLServer2005. some about earlier versions a while back (mostly FUD from Microsoft or their shills). I do have a book which covers how to admin SQLServer2005 from the point of view of an Oracle DBA. Not read much of it but what i read seems to indicate that SQLServer is a pig to administer properly, if all you need is the defaults then it's fine but if you need to get 'under the hood' then you're fighting it all the way (I get the impression that 'Performance tuning' = 'Buy bigger hardware').
Where I work about half of our database server estate (number of installations) is Oracle, about one third SQLServer and the remainder a mixture of legacy and just plain wierd systems (e.g. CICS, Tamino, DB2, PACBASE &c). Of these it is SQLServer that gives us the most hassle and suport calls by far. As I'm purely Oracle I don't know if this is due to inherant faults in the product or the administrators.
If your manager thinks that Oracle is expensive then he should consider the cost of a major loss of functional uptime or a few days' transactions on core business systems due to databases locking up, corrupting themselves and needing to be restored from backup with no way to roll forward.
2. I know absolutely nothing about Java code. We develop and deploy Java code for a very specific application for a specific industry. The code uses PL/SQL procedures and sequences extensively. It also uses a db_link to move data from production to a demo database for our new customers and for demonstrating new features for current customers. What might be involved in changing the code? Would it need to be changed at all? Obivously, it would have be tested under load.
Moving RDBMS will result in code changes. SQLServer does not use PL/SQL and has many other differences that would require code changes in migrating applications.
If you're going to put yourself through the pain and expense of migration then you'd probably be best served widening your options and looking at MySQL, PostgresSQL and others. If you're already using RHEL then the odds are you already have access to MySQL and/or PostgresSQL and may be able to get then supported through your RHEL support contract for minimal or zero extra cost.
Stephen
-- It's better to ask a silly question than to make a silly assumption.
http://stephensorablog.blogspot.com/
'nohup cd /; rm -rf * > /dev/null 2>&1 &' (There's a strong arguement for the belief that running a command without first knowing what it does is 'Darwin in action') -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
