Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of esc_toe_account
esc_toe_accountFlag for United States of America

asked on

Easy: Oracle vs. MS SQL Server TCO (Total Cost of Ownership)

Happy to increase/split points for this one:

Looking for total cost of ownership references for:
• 50 GB Oracle database
     vs.
• 50 GB Microsoft SQL Server database

Thanks!
Avatar of bogdincescu
bogdincescu

When you have Oracle DB you *really need* a professional DBA, while when you have a MS SQL Server DB, the Windows admin can be DBA as well. I think this would make the real difference in the cost of ownership.

Yet, you should also think at the performance.
For instance, Oracle has tablespaces and extents for datafiles and tables, while MS SQL Server 2000 doesn't have tablespaces, nor extents for tables and there's no way to make MS SQL Server store a certain table in a given datafile (although a DB may have several datafiles).

Moreover, MS SQL Server is not as stable as Oracle, so if you wish a DB that runs 24x7, the best would be Oracle on some unix - be it Solaris, HP-UX or SCO (I'm uncertain wether a Linux would be more stable than a Windows 200 Server).
Avatar of Guy Hengel [angelIII / a3]
bogdincescu, i would like to point you to the fact that MSSQL server has the notion of filegroup, which can do the same thing than tablespaces... what sql doesn't have is partionned tables...
For a 50 GB database, SQL Server will be as stable as Oracle...
CHeers
It's a good point about Oracle requiring a trained/qualified DBA and these guys are expensive!..a little more expensive than a SQL Server DBA.  To get the most from SQL Server you are going to require a DBA of some kind rather than a Windows Admin.

Historically Oracle is definately the more stable platform but SQL server is by far and away the most friendly..especially if interfacing with other databases from other vendors.

Total "cost" of ownership..I reckon SQL Server is cheaper based on more commonly available skills in the market (therefore cheaper).  SQL Server purchase cost is less, Support cost is also less.  

If you want to earn more yourself...Oracle every time!

Confused as to which is best...you should be, so is everyone else!
You could try here for references :

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/evaluation/compare/default.asp

Cheers,

T.
There's more to a database than the immediate cost of ownership. Even if you go with MS SQL Server now, you might find down the road that you need the features that Oracle provides (and believe me, there's TONS of them that SQL Server doesn't have).  It will cost you more money in the long run to convert the whole thing to Oracle later.

You should look at your requirements first, long term and short term, then decide which databases suit your requirements. Only then should you look at the cost.


Andrew
esc_toe_account, please reject that "answer" !

quirkyquirky, what are you doing/ what do you want to say with this????


This person has been suspended for multiple violations of the Member Agreement, so I will reject the proposed answer, and return your question to the Active Questions List.

Thank you,

Netminder
CS Moderator
Hi,

In terms of cost of ownsership, look at the TPC site
(www.tpc.org from memory)
They results also give a cost per tpm or something like that.

SQL at the hardware and software level is way less expensive than a similar Oracle solution, all other things being equal which they never are.

Regards
  David

ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of csar
csar

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial