SQL Server switch to MySQL/PostgreSQL for startup?

views:

answers:

SQL Server switch to MySQL/PostgreSQL for startup?

I just checked out the licensing for SQL Server and well...i can't afford it since im funding this project myself. I have been tinkering with MySQL and PostgreSQL a bit the past few weeks and at this point I can't really decide which to go with. MySQL has a large user base and lots of people using it so finding out how to do various items will not be to hard o find.

I will be using ASP.NET with this project.

Anyone have experience going from SQL Server to either of these databases? Is one stronger than the other? Thoughts?

How comes you can not afford it?

I mean, it is just 100 USD for like three years for a startup. Maximum ;)

Or did you not do your work properly?

Licensing for you can be:

Free (SQL Express, but ok - 4gb CAN be a limit).
Around 20 USD per month per processor (Web edition, SPLA, no upstart cost - the ONLY valid license for service providers)
Around 100 USD for 3 years under the bizspark program for startups.

TomTom 2010-04-05 06:09:58

he need to license Windows Server too if he will not use Mono for his ASP.NET. that adds to the costs too, two recurring software expenses

Hao 2010-04-05 06:41:05

Actually it does no - not. Under Bizspark quite a large packet is licensed. And I would not cound 100 USD for three years cost. It also does not under SPLA - or: it does, but it is not significant. I pay around USD 75 for a server under datacenter license, per month, including all updates. Note that this is a 32gb machine with a LOT of discs and unlimited virtualization rights (would be a lot less for a window sserver standard or enterprise). If you take into account running costs around USD 1000 for that server per month... that is pretty much nothing.

TomTom 2010-04-05 06:54:04

Open source zealots very often ignore the real costs of running hardware - in really most projects even oracle licensing costs are just a small tip on the real costs. In this case, I pay a lot for: hardware writeoff (need replacement after x years), electricity, TRAFFIC (!), the data center infrastructure, backup/restore (more discs to pay for), administration (yes, sorry, admins dont work for free). With open source I would save pretty much only the small licensing cost. It would not make any difference on my profit/loss.

TomTom 2010-04-05 06:55:51

he is funding his own project, what if his project needs to scale? and need to setup a server farm? multiply those number of servers to the number of software that needed be licensed, and additionally, they are **recurring expenses**. sometimes it is really about the upfront cost plus future cost.

Hao 2010-04-05 08:18:47

Hao, are you a thief stealing internet? Seriously - if he needs to scale, ALL the costs I mentioned ALSO have to scale, and at that püoint noone cares whether he funds himself or not. How do you scale free open source software - without paying for servers, hosting, internet and spending more time? UNless you can answer that sensible - this is an idiotic statement. Yes, if you ened 5 servers instead of 1 license costs are also 5 times. BUt bad news - you also need to buy 5 servers, have 5 times the rack space, use 5 times the electricity AND need a LOT more bandwidth - all to be paid.

TomTom 2010-04-05 08:26:59

As I said - open yource zealots (which you seem to belong to) are often too stupid to see that the license costs are not making or breaking anything. They are not even relevant in the large bag of invoices one has to pay. I suggest reading something like "business basics for absolute beginners". Btw., servers in general are ALWAYS recurring expenses. From purchase (limited lifetime) to electricity (stupid, need to pay every month) to colocation and electricity. EVERYTHING is a recurring expense.

TomTom 2010-04-05 08:28:46

think google, if they have to license all their 450,000 machines http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/03/building-a-computer-the-google-way.html. that would indeed costs a lot

Hao 2010-04-05 09:36:01

if i'm an opensource zealot, you seems to belong to microsoft shills

Hao 2010-04-05 09:37:03

database (or any software for that matter) could be a commodity someday, no need to pay for, why not be ahead of the curve? do you know this joke -> friend of programmer: "oh, so you are working for microsoft?" programmer: "yeah i work for microsoft, actually all of us are working for microsoft, some just don't know it yet"

Hao 2010-04-05 09:41:02

Check out PostgreSQL it's a nice package.

StarShip3000 2010-04-05 13:52:18

One could also say "Proprietary zealots" ignore the real cost of being locked into a vendor. Personally I use what works by a case by case basis. Some times that's SQL Server or Oracle and sometimes that's PostgreSQL.

StarShip3000 2010-04-05 13:55:40

I looked into Amazons Ec2s services and they offer SQL Server with a windows offering but it jumps an average of 300+ a month to run it. Even if I do enroll in the Bizspark program I will still have to fork over 300-500 a month extra for utilizing SQL Server. Amazon Ec2 offers some nice some nice features that other hosts do not offer which is why i am leaning their way. If i dont order SQL Server the costs are from 40-250 a month depending on traffic, hours of use, etc. Pretty good pricing.

chopps 2010-04-05 15:56:39

Try MS Azure - they havea competitive offer. That said, any cloud system is inherently badly positioned for a database - databases get demanding performancewise very fast on the IO side.

TomTom 2010-04-06 06:42:46

Also check your data provider tools (Ado.net, EF-support) for these database systems first. It makes no sense paying that saved money for a 3rd party provider because the 'official' ones lacks basic support.

oli 2010-04-06 17:17:27

I will be using EntitySpaces(ORM) and they provide support for MySQl/SQL Server/PostgreSQL so this part is covered.

chopps 2010-04-06 18:08:04

ansaurus

tags:

views:

answers:

SQL Server switch to MySQL/PostgreSQL for startup?

related questions