Re : Losing out to SQL Server
- From: David Robillard <david.robillard@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l mailing list <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wblanchard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 10:19:27 -0500
Hi WGB,
> Trying to sell a $1 million dollar solution that SQL Server can cover for
> a few hundred thousand is killing me.
I've been in your position often and it's not easy. One thing that worked
well for me was to use the existing Oracle infrastructure for the new
project. Consolidate various applications into a single database using
different schemas. This way management was happy because their investment
in Oracle was being leveraged for more than one business requirements. And
you as a DBA get to keep working with Oracle.
Also, in your cost analysis, don't forget to factor in the install time,
knowledge/strenght of the sysadmin/DBA team on the product, time to
write/update the documentation, effort required to setup and test the
various failure scenarios with the related backup and restore operations to
fix them, HA setup and testing, cost and time of training personnel or devs
on the product along with possible marketing benefits/issues for your
corporation if using Oracle vs. another RDBMS. That last part may sound
strange, but one of my previous job they had to run Oracle for the «
prestige » of telling their potential customers that they were using
Oracle. Hey, every trick counts no? :)
If all else fdails and you're ready to try another RDBMS then maybe check
PostgreSQL [1] which IMHO is better and has more features than MySQL. Or
consider EnterpriseDB [2] which is a commercial product built on top of
PostgreSQL, but with Oracle-like commands which makes the learning curve
easy and drives the cost way down.
HTH,
David
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/
[2] http://www.enterprisedb.com/
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
