However, Oracle has been known to make VMware deployment assertions that are not contractually accurate. These assertions may include the false assertion that all nodes need to be licensed in a VMware cluster where Oracle is deployed. As a result, the other nodes in the cluster do not require Oracle licenses. As an example, a four-node VMware cluster may have Oracle deployed with host affinity rules keeping Oracle on only two of the four nodes. Unfortunately, some organizations may have been audited by Oracle and purchased more licenses than contractually required as a result.
Many organizations are considering alternatives to Oracle, usually due to high costs or a strained vendor relationship or both. Whatever the reason, for many organizations moving to an alternate database platform is a viable option. Most organizations that move from Oracle to an alternate use a hybrid approach. If an organization is already a Microsoft shop and well-staffed for SQL Server, this may be the best option for moving workloads off of Oracle.
In fact, many applications that run on Oracle may also support SQL Server, further solidifying it as a viable alternative. While any Oracle cost saving hack must be done in a contract-compliant and audit-defensible manner, those listed above as well as other options, could help organizations realize significant savings.
There are also concerns about running productions applications on Microsoft Windows, one of the most notoriously unreliable OS environments in the universe. Oracle's Technical Network forums have hundreds of reports of Oracle failures due to being on a Windows platform.
Here are the costs as of , according to this OTN discussion on Oracle vs. SQL Server licensing costs unverified cost figures.
But the license costs are just a tiny fraction of the total costs for a database management system. Most shops look to TCO total cost of ownership.
TCO is a better measure because it factors-in the cost of managing the database software and the ease of utilities for performing basic database administration tasks. Oracle's utilities are second to none, and Oracle was designed from the ground-up to be friendly to the DBA. When comparing the costs of Oracle vs. SQL Server we must remember that it's not just about features. Hence, SQL Server is not appropriate to take a customer all the way as they grow. A some point, the Intel-based servers become overloaded and they must migrate to Oracle to enjoy the larger server environments.
Oracle guru Jeff Hunter , suggests that marketing studies are largely meaningless, if only because Linux is far more powerful and stable than Windows:. Lets see an apples to apples comparison. If you're putting it on non-Oracle hardware, that is when you buy the support license, which is also very reasonable.
If you compare what it can do with how much Oracle charges for support, it's more or less free. Just look into it. You'll find that this is one of the lower-cost solutions out there. There is no OS licensing cost if you use their hardware and purchase hardware maintenance. When buying a server from Oracle, all the software is included -- OS, virtualization and patches. There are no hidden costs.
There's no need to replace the hardware every two to three years, and we have a life cycle of five years and more. I can't talk about prices.
Oracle, for sure. I believe that Oracle is committing market suicide by hurting those enterprises still loyal to its technology. But enterprises lose as well. That will putting them at an increasing disadvantage over time. Thanks, Oracle. David S. Linthicum is an internationally recognized industry expert and thought leader.
0コメント