Hi Ken,
Here's my $.02
Oracle is much more labor intensive to administer and tune. The stored procs do not return sets, you must use cursors to return one row at a time. The cost is higher (I'm 99.9% sure of this but verify on your own). They have a phenomenal marketing machine. Most SQL server DBAs that I know don't like it as much but that could just be a case of familiarity. I think that the Oracle systems that work best run on Unix. You can get a feel for this by seeing what the systems which post TPC results run on. If you don't know Unix and have sys admins in house, this may be a problem.
MS SQL Server scales well up to about 300+ GB. if you are no-where near that but expect to grow larger in a few years, it's probably OK because a few years ago, it didn't scale to the 100 GB range. I believe that their implementation of XML is better than Oracle's at this time. What is the size of your DB?
You can look for additional information about performance in the TPC councils benchmarks. http://www.tpc.org Oracle rates well in the 100 GB, 300 GB, 1000 GB and 3000 GB ranges in the TPC H (warehousing). In the TPC C and TPC W, Microsoft reigns supreme (Transaction processing and Web Transactions). Take these results with a grain of salt as 4 months ago, Oracle wasn't in the running in the warehousing (tcp H). (The vendors tend to leap-frog each other.) If you explore there, go into the details and look at the total system price. Some of these systems cost Millions of dollars. If your budget is nothing like that, then look at results that are closer to you budget.
When you speak with Oracle, let them know how many users you will have. If it is a web app and the app checks the DB for permission, etc, then I believe that Oracle (or any other DB for that matter) considers them to be users. If you use a 3 or n tier architecture, where a middle tier maintains a set number of connections to the DB, then the number of end users is still considered to be the number of users - not just the number of connections.
A conversion would not be either fast, painless, or easy.
In the long run, I suspect that either would work for you but if you are getting adequate response times, you may be as well off staying where you are. Personally, I would try to find out why they think Oracle scales better and if that is the case in the sizes you anticipate, and if they are aware of the costs involved. (Lesson 1. never assume that the other person knows what they are talking about.) It could be a negotiating tactic, it could just be hearsay or a guess.
Now for the political side.
MS Sql server (and MS Operating Systems) are not perceived by many as being enterprise class software. (Personally, I'll reserve judgement on this.)
Oracle is immensely popular - for whatever the reason.
If you know Oracle and SQL Server, you value can only go up.
Oracle 9i is a good DB (as is SQL Server 2000).
If it is a deal maker, and you need the deal, then make plans to convert. Start a pilot project, etc. Just be aware that you probably won't be converted in 3 months or 6 months unless your system is very straightforward.
. . . Tom
On 08/07/2002 03:42:07 PM Ken Nickels wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm a DBA in a small startup company specializing in backend services -
> provisioning and billing - for internet telephony devices (cable modems,
> etc.). I've been tasked with doing a study on the cost and feasabitlity of
> converting our database servers from sql server to Oracle. Seems to me the
> driving force is perception from outside our company (the people we'd like
> to buy us) that we would be more attractive "if only" we used Oracle. Sql
> Server does not scale they say, etc., etc. So we are trying to get bought.
>
> 1. I (we) are perfectly happy with sql server. 2. I know nothing about
> Oracle. I would like to know if anyone here has any personal experience with
> this conversion process, knows of any links, stories, how-to's, etc.
> Eventually I will call Oracle and deal with their sales people (gulp).
>
> We are a 100% Microsoft shop with Windows 2000, sql server 2000 live/standby
> config, IIS web farm, C++ apps as cgi programs, app servers and middle tier
> com components. 100% of the sql is T-Sql via stored procedures.
>
> Are there Oracle conversion tools for this? Will the T-sql convert to
> Pl-sql? Is there a tool for this? Or will it all have to be re-written from
> scratch? Also a concern is true load sharing. Sql server is pretty much
> live/standby. I gather from Microsoft that this is a tough nut to crack and
> no one really has a good implemetation of it. Distributed partitioned views?
> Doesn't sound that great to me. So folks keep mentioning Oracle. What do
> they have?
>
> Well, thank for reading this. Any help or links would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Regards:
>
> Ken Nickels
> Gemini Voice Solutions
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
the views of Reuters Ltd.
MS Sql Server LazyDBA home page