Alex Turner wrote:
> I'm not advocating that people switch to Oracle at all, It's still
> much more expensive than Postgresql, and for most small and medium
> applications Postgresql is much easier to manage and maintain. I
> would just like to make sure people get their facts straight. I
> worked for a company that selected MS SQL Server because it was
> 'cheaper' than Oracle, when infact with the correct Oracle pricing,
> Oracle was cheaper, and had superior features. I would have prefered
> that they use Postgresql, which for the project in question would have
> been more appropriate and cost much less in hardware and software
> requirements, but they had to have 'Industry Standard'. Oracle ended
> up costing <$10k with licenses at $149 ea for 25 users, and the
> support contract wasn't that much of a bear - I can't remember exactly
> how much, I think it was around $1800/yr.
My facts were straight, and they come from firsthand experience. The
point is, it is easy to get trapped into thinking to yourself, "great, I
can get a dual CPU oracle server for ~$10K, that's not too bad...". But
then later you figure out you really need table partitioning or RAC, and
suddenly you have to jump directly to multiple 6 figures. The entry
level Oracle pricing is mainly a marketing gimmick -- it is intended to
get you hooked.
Also note that the per named user license scheme is subject to per CPU
minimums that guarantee you'll never spend less than half the per CPU
price. Oracle's licensing is so complex that there are businesses out
there that subsist solely on helping companies figure it out to save
money, and they take a cut of the savings. Oracle's own account reps had
a hard time answering this question -- does a hyperthreaded Intel CPU
count as 1 or 2 CPUs from a licensing standpoint? We were eventually
told 1, but that the decision was "subject to change in the future".
Joe
