Open Source Databases "50% Cheaper"

pete314 writes, "Open source databases can cut the total cost of ownership of a database by up to 60% compared to the cost of running proprietary databases from Oracle, Microsoft or IBM. According to data collected by Forrester Research, the savings average about 50%. Open source databases however still struggle to reach mission-critical enterprise applications because enterprises perceive them to be less secure and stable."

Comments

enterprises also want

[rubycodez]

enterprises also want paralleling clusters and failover clusters. The open source databases are getting there, give it few more years.

Re:enterprises also want

[wiggles]

The one place that the Open Source products have a long way to go is support. Companies don't think mysql and postgres are unreliable, they're just not backed enough. The company I work for could give a rat's hindquarters about TCO -- they just want to outsource their risk so that if something breaks, the CIO/CEO/Chairman has someone to argue with. The Chairman can play golf with Larry Ellison as he tries to get more concessions out of Oracle, but he can't play WOW with the 19 year old kid who added some bit of code to mysql.

And before you say it, MySQL AG is still small potatoes compared to Oracle, Microsoft, or IBM.

Re:enterprises also want

[dingDaShan]

It's true. Any person who is in an IT job does not want to risk going to an open source database (even if it saves the company money) because:
1. He does not want to risk his job if there are problems... if there is an Oracle database, he can just use the Oracle support and tell the boss that they are using the best 2. There is no monetary incentive for the IT professional to switch. If the IT professional would see a benefit to himself that would outweigh the possible problems, there might be a switch, but until then what is the benefit? 3. Some companies just want it to work because they want to do business. Most managers don't want to get involved in database technical issues. They just want results and are willing to pay for it.

0% savings for me

[Crudely_Indecent]

For those of us who can't afford to run a commercial database package, and have been running open source databases from the beginning, this isn't news. MySQL and Postgres are your friends.

Re:0% savings for me

[glwtta]

Open Source Databases are only free if you don't value your time.

Dude, have you actually used both Postgres and Oracle? There is not an entity on this earth less respectful of my time than Oracle (well, maybe ClearCase) - the thing is an absolute nightmare to administer. Sure, it needs the complexity because of its advanced scaling capabilities; but most of us are not amazon.com, and never will be.

On the other hand, the administrative overhead of running Postgres is damn near 0% (MySQL is a different story entirely of course).

Sure we are a small company, and only have under a TB of data in our databases, but there are a lot of companies in the same position who shell out ridiculous amounts of money for Oracle (only for the name-brand, nothing else), and then someone ends up stabbing themselves in the eye in frustration (might be a slight exaggeration). Or else pay for a full time DBA; I've worked for a company with 3 developers and 1 full time Oracle DBA - that's just nuts.

Re:SQL Server = Almost Free

[profplump]

First, if you're afraid of command-line work, you aren't running Oracle, or anything else in that class.

Second, unless you're doing something out of the ordinary, simply installing mysql or postgres in the same way you usually install programs (be that apt-get, rpm, MS Installer, etc). is all you need to get the database up and running. The same is true of the GUI tools to manage the database -- the Windows installer for postgres includes PgAdminIII in the same package as the database itself.

I'm not bashing MS SQL Server, but let's not pretend it has some magical ease-of-use that doesn't exist in other packages.

Re:SQL Server = Almost Free

[kpharmer]

I actually found sql server to be quite expensive - from licensing (which was running > $80k for a 4-way on enterprise edition) to labor.

The lack of command-line features meant that many operational activities that could be automated required a dba to manually do the job via the gui. And lets not even talk about how you had to completely recreate DTS packages when promoting them from dev to test to prod...

So, there are labor savings that you can get on sql server vs oracle, db2, postgresql, etc - but the lack of a command line interface wasn't a driver in my experience.

product support is over-rated

[kpharmer]

> People are far more dependable when they're working for money than for charity.

not when they suck - which they frequently do when working on product support teams.

yes, I'm glad that I'm working with supported products - but I also avoid calling them like the plague. It is very much a worst-case scenario.

Where are the test results?

[msobkow]

Do you seriously think any CIO with a functioning brain cell is going to go with free unsupported software when they can't even find a single reference to such databases from any certified performance evaluation companies or organizations?

The downtime cost of one single failure in a five year period for a mission critical system can easily run 100 times the cost of a commercial product with support. Only bean counting fools risk their entire business without properly assessed risks and disaster recovery plans.

Not having someone to source the recovery of the smouldering crater that was your data center is a huge issue.