Pr dc 2015 sql server is cheaper than open source
Download as PDF, PPTX1 like767 views
SQL Server was found to be cheaper than open source options for a data warehouse project with the following requirements: - Serve 100% operational reports from 1TB of data - No need for advanced features like big data support - Requirement was for basic textual reporting An investigation was conducted of SQL Server, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, and PostgreSQL. SQL Server and PostgreSQL were evaluated further based on costs and functionality. After a 10 year total cost of ownership analysis, SQL Server was found to be cheaper despite having a higher initial license cost. The lessons learned were that open source options are not always cheaper, to test options yourself rather than rely on biased reports, and that Oracle is very expensive.
More Related Content
Similar to Pr dc 2015 sql server is cheaper than open source(20)
Pr dc 2015 sql server is cheaper than open source
- 1. SQL Server –Cheaper than Open Source Terry Bunio
- 2.
- 3. Me • Terry Bunio •Data Base Administrator – Oracle, SQL Server 6,6.5,7,2000,2005,2012, Informix, ADABAS • Sharepoint fan • Data Modeler/Architect – Investors Group, LPL Financial, Manitoba Blue Cross, Assante Financial, CI Funds, Mackenzie Financial – Normalized and Dimensional • Agilist – Innovation Gamer, Team Member, SQL Developer, Test writer, Sticky Sticker, Project Manager, PMO on SAP Implementation – Currently all of these all the same time on an Agile SAP implementation for an Insurance company
- 5. Protegra • In Business14+ years • Winnipeg Company • Agile and Lean key to our practices • 60+ consultants • Software Development and Business Performance Consulting • Microsoft Gold Partner
- 6. Agenda • The Project •The Investigation • The Candidates • Lessons Learned • Questions
- 7. The Project • EnterpriseData Warehouse project • Their existing Data Warehouse was: – A combination of application databases, reporting database, and data warehouse • With a hockey pool database to boot – In Sybase – Reports created in Impromptu 7.0 – They needed to get off of Impromptu because of licensing costs • They had a history of using Open Source products – Linux – Jasper Reports – Java • Although they had a history of Open Source products they were open to other options
- 8. The Objectives • Implementlessons that have been learned over the past 11 years since the Data Warehouse has been in production. • Eliminate many potentially unneeded reports that have been created over the past 11 years and minimize the maintenance effort of the Data Warehouse • Implement a Data Dictionary for the Data Warehouse that will enable individual business departments to be much more efficient at creating self-service reports • Eliminate redundant data from the Data Warehouse that has caused misunderstandings and difficulties in creating reports from the Data Warehouse • Improve the design of the data structures in the Data Warehouse to address inconsistencies and less than optimal design. • Possibly reduce the license cost of the Data Warehouse.
- 9. The Requirements • TheData Warehouse serves up 100% operational reports • There is no Big Data requirement • Advanced DBMS and Reporting tools really aren’t needed • Just require a platform for non-sexy textual, operational reports • Not a huge amount of data either – 1 Terabyte
- 10.
- 11. Database Investigation • Dueto the cost of DB2 and the operational requirements, the following options were identified as candidates and evaluated: • Sybase ASE Enterprise Edition – Current Data Warehouse Technology • Microsoft SQL Server 2012 Enterprise Edition • Oracle Enterprise Edition with Partitioning option • Open Source Community Edition • Open Source Supported Edition
- 13. Database Factors • Cost –Initial Cost – Annual Cost – DBA Efficiency • Non Cost – Client Required Functionality – Technical Functionality – DBMS Management Functionality – People and Future Flexibility – Performance Functionality
- 14. Cost Investigation Scenarios •2 Servers with 2 quad core CPUs on each Server – 16 cores in total • 2 Servers with 2 hex core CPUs on each Server – 32 cores in total • 2 Servers with 4 hex core CPUs on each Server – 64 cores in total
- 15. Investigation Constraints • Thisinvestigation did not include the functionality or cost of: – Disaster Recover – Hot or Warm Failover functionality • This is because this was not a requirement of their current environment
- 16. Cost per CPUcore
- 17. Open Source Community versusSupported Editions • Community Editions– As is. No support outside of general community and message boards in case of issues • Supported Editions – 3rd party provides additional support in cae of questions or errors. And example of this is EnterpriseDB that provides this type of support for PostgreSQL.
- 18. Open Source Community versusSupported Editions • No sane corporate enterprise would run solely a community edition of a database. Maybe other frameworks, but not a database. • So for a corporate enterprise, we will not consider the Community Edition of Open Source DBMS
- 20.
- 22. Annual Estimated Costs •License Support costs – These costs are the support and maintenance costs for both the Production and Development environments. • Estimated Annual Maintenance Costs – It is estimated that there will be additional ongoing effort to maintain the different DBMS solutions as compared to the current Sybase solution. This is due to the different complexities of the DBMS solution, the available tools for the DBMS solution, and the available support in the DBMS user communities.
- 23.
- 25. 10 year TotalCost of Ownership
- 28. Voted off theisland • Due to the large cost of Oracle, Oracle was included from the next phase of investigation
- 29. Risks to StrategicDatabase Selection • A change in the strategic technologies of the corporation. • A limitation in the current technology as compared to its competitors. • A requirement to re-sell the database asset to another company and the current strategic Database technology is not consistent across companies. • A requirement to re-use (i.e. host services) the database asset externally and the current strategic Database technology is not consistent across companies.
- 30. Mitigation activities to minimizeRisk • 100% usage of only ANSI-compliant SQL to eliminate the requirement to convert SQL if a change in database technology is required. • 100% usage of only ANSI-compliant Database features to eliminate the requirement to convert away from these features if a change in database technology is required. • Full source code control and versioning of all Database Data Definition Language (DDL) statements. • Minimal usage of Database triggers and stored procedures as most databases have stored procedures and triggers written in a proprietary language. • Creation of a Database isolation layer using views that can help to mitigate changes required to the database for the new consumer.
- 31.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
- 35. People and FutureFlexibility
- 36.
- 38. Evaluation Criteria • Werereviewed and approved by the client • This included the relative weights assigned to each
- 39. Yeah, but whatdoes Gartner say?
- 40. Gartner Comparison • Thecriteria listed have been compared to the Gartner criteria recommended to evaluate Data Warehouse solutions. The percentages are different due to the fact that 30% of our evaluation contains factors that Gartner does not consider. These factors are:
- 41.
- 42. Gartner Comparison • Thetwo factors that differ greatly between the two ranking methodologies are: – Performance – Administration and Manageability • The only factor that is weighted more in the Gartner ranking methodology is the Administration and Manageability factor. This factor is addressed in two areas on our document, Cost and Functionality. A material part of the cost factor takes into consideration the additional administration and management that would be required. • With this in mind, it is our opinion that the Administration and Manageability factors are being weighted consistently across the two ranking methodologies. • It is our opinion that performance is rated too low in the Gartner criteria
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48. People and FutureFlexibility
- 49. MyISAM and InnoDBengines
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
- 58.
- 60.
- 61. Lessons Learned • Iundertook this investigation in the formal manner I did because I was disappointed with the lack of impartial reviews in the market with enough detail • Gartner has high level reviews, but nothing at a practitioner level • Any reports at the practitioner level has been ‘tuned’ to promote a certain DBMS – MySQL reports using MyISAM engine – Oracle and Sybase reports using SQL built to perform best on their configurations
- 62. Lessons Learned • OpenSource DBMSs are not the bargain they initially appear to be • Know your requirements • Do your own tests • Read the fine print • Oracle really is expensive
- 63. References • The Stateof Data Warehousing in 2011 – Gartner • Data Warehousing Trends for the CIO, 2011-2012 – Gartner • Comparison of Data Warehousing DBMS Platforms – Illuminate • Next Generation Data Warehouse Platforms – The Data Warehouse Institute (TDWI) – Phillip Russom • Magic Quadrant for Data Warehouse Database Management Systems – Gartner • PostgreSQL versus MySQL - http://www-css.fnal.gov/dsg/external/freeware/pgsql-vs-mysql.html • MySQL versus PostgreSQL - http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL • Why PostgreSQL instead of MySQL 2009 - http://wiki.PostgreSQL.org/wiki/Why_PostgreSQL_Instead_of_MySQL_2009 • Open Source Feature Comparison Matrix - http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/29480?trk=DXRSS_DB • The Open Source Data Warehouse Revolution - http://www.ittoday.info/Articles/Open_Source_Data_Warehouse.htm • MySQL 5.6 Reference Manual - http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.6/en/index.html • PostgreSQL 9.1 Reference Manual - http://www.PostgreSQL.org/docs/9.1/static/index.html • PostgreSQL vs. MySQL vs. Commercial Databases: It's All About What You Need - http://www.devx.com/dbzone/Article/20743/0/page/1 • Cross Compare of PostgreSQL 8.4, SQL Server 2008, MySQL 5.1 - http://www.Postgresonline.com/journal/index.php?/archives/130-Cross-Compare-of-PostgreSQL- 8.4,-SQL-Server-2008,-MySQL-5.1.html • MySQL versus PostgreSQL - http://www.mysqlvsPostgreSQL.com/ • PostgreSQL versus MySQL: which is better - http://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/3288951/PostgreSQL-vs-MySQL- Which-is-better.htm • Comparison of Relational Database Management Systems - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
- 64.