Slashdot Mirror
Alternatives to MS SQL Server for Dynamic Content Website?
Cindy asks: "My current employer has a handful of websites, which are massive and messy entanglement of ASP on IIS with MS SQL storing the dynamic content. As the company scaled down to only 1 full-time temp (me) in IS and a sales manager overseeing servers + managing web sites, the company would like to trim down behind the back. More specifically, they would like to let go of the use of SQL server altogether. I've used Zope before, but I'm not sure how well it works on Windows. Then there's ColdFusion, but I don't know anything about it. What other choices do I have?"
"The replacement has the following requirements:
- Must run on Windows (they're a Microsoft reseller after all)
- Stable, mature, secure for corporate strength (over 10 product categories, each with 8-10 products)
- Easy to learn, easy to use, and easy to maintain for someone who is comfortable with server maintenance and website design, but not too knowledgeable. I'll leave the company by January
- Not too much programming involved. HTML and ASP/PHP-ish are OK."
1. How much do you need to change the current set-up?
As one full-time temp, do you really have the personpower to re-write or re-implement everything, probably temporarily breaking things in the meanwhile? You'll be a wreck.
Why not leave it?
2. Licensing.
Tell us about how much you're paying for the different licensing of the MS server components you use. Maybe a libre solution might make more sense? Could you argue that in exchange for cutting out the licensing costs, you be given a few other temp team members to work with?
I think we really need more information before we can tell you what's best for your particular circumstances.
One more thing: Cold Fusion is soooo 90's.
And based on the content of this ask slashdot, it's you.
You compare Zope to SQL Server. Zope is an applications server. SQL Server is an RDBMS, a relational database. You can't replace SQL Server with Zope. Zope can use SQL Server. Since you've already licensed the expensive (and, in my opinion, EXCELLENT) SQL Server, why not continue to use it? If you want to use Zope instead of ASP, go ahead, but what makes you think it's going to be any easier to maintain than what you've got now? Or rather, will the headache of converting to Zope (or whatever) be worth the end result? Could it be that your current setup is "a messy entanglement" because of the way it was written, and not due to the tools you are using?
Perhaps you should hire a consultant to look over what you've got and help you figure out the best solution. It's hard to make a good recommendation when we don't know WHY your current situation is so entangled, or how hard it's going to be to untangle it.
"And like that
to help a company that funds a company that is actively hostile to the members of this community.
What community is that? I'm a Slashdot reader, and I use Microsoft products all the time.
Not everyone on here is an anti-Microsoft zealot. (I'd wager the majority reading this site are accessing it from a Windows computer.)
"And like that
I'll tell you what I told Kevin-- only without using so much profanity, because this kind of response from you seems out of character with your usual posts; I'm extending the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that you happened to be an asshole in this instance, but that you're not usually an asshole.
This kind of attitude and a stance of open-source advocacy are incompatible. When using, or even thinking of using, open-source software, one has nowhere to turn but to the community itself for advice and help. When someone does that, it's critically important that the members of the community not be assholes. This kind of behavior just shatters whatever tiny grains of credibility the community of hobbyists and hackers has managed to accumulate over the years.
In other words, take your mama's advice. If you can't say something nice, shut the fuck up.
I write in my journal
Adaptive Server Anywhere, by Sybase, fits all of your requirements. It:
1) Is fast and very inexpensive compared to the other professional alternatives.
2) Is mature (been around 15+ years)
3) Is scalable from a DB size of 80k (seriously, it runs on RIM pagers) up to many gigabytes. It's used by places like McDonald's (their cash registers run it), the city of Edmonton (their hydro personnel run it on their PDAs when out in the field), etc.
4) Is available on oodles of platforms (Microsoft, Linux, *nix, etc.)
5) Requires *very* little maintenance or DB administration. If you're used to SQL Server, you will probably be amazed to see how easy it is to run/administer ASA.
6) Is self-tuning -- it has dynamic cache resizing, like MS SQL Server, as well as a great query optimizer with histogram-based selectivity and a fast join enumeration engine. It supports full ANSI SQL92 and a big chunk of ANSI SQL99, as well as T-SQL (like SQL Server).
7) Is supported by a well-built-up community of users, developers, and Sybase staff who regularly answer questions on the newsgroups, helping new users, helping others tweak their SQL, etc.
8) Has ODBC, TDS (like MS SQL Server), and ANSI/ISO ESQL/C interfaces.
But, don't take my word for it. Check out news://forums.sybase.com (the "sqlanywhere" newsgroups), and ask around. Check out www.sybase.com and download a free evaluation copy and see if it suits your needs.
Personally, at about $400 Canadian, I think that ASA is about the fastest, easiest, most capable DB server around for small to medium-sized DBs.