On Παρ 15 Ιουν 2012 12:29:38 Samuel Gendler wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Samuel Gendler
>
> <sgendler@ideasculptor.com>wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Achilleas Mantzios <
> >
> > achill@matrix.gatewaynet.com> wrote:
> >> And i forgot to mention, minicom term emulation quality sucks, even
> >> giving simple
> >> shell commands is a PITA, upgrading the whole fleet would mean bast case
> >> scenario
> >> minimum 21K USD for the whole fleet + suspension of all other activities
> >> for two months.
> >> If physical travel was involved, the cost would be increased at even
> >> higher levels.
> >
> > And what is the cost of data corruption on large numbers of systems? And
> > how much to fix that, especially if multiple systems fail at the same
> > time?
> >
> > Some things aren't free. $21K in exchange for NOT having had to keep
> >
> > systems up to date for 4 years seems like a decent trade.
>
> Just call up an oracle sales rep and get a price quote for a single
> baseline system. Put that next to the postgresql upgrade cost for your
> whole fleet.
:) I know, I have used this argument sometimes successfully, sometimes not.
The problem with oracle is not the price. The problem is that it just cannot do
what postgresql does, or what we have managed to do ourselves with postgresql.
Our replication system is unique, built in-house, and no commercial alternative existed,
exists, or (most probably) will exist.
-
Achilleas Mantzios
IT DEPT
