89 fifth avenue, 7th floor new york, ny 10003 www ... · pdf file89 fifth avenue, 7th floor...

89 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor

New York, NY 10003

www.TheEdison.com

212.367.7400

White Paper

Microsoft SQL Server Reduces Costs,

Complexity, and Security Risks for

Mission-Critical Applications

Printed in the United States of America

Copyright 2013 Edison Group, Inc. New York. Edison Group offers no warranty either

expressed or implied on the information contained herein and shall be held harmless for

errors resulting from its use.

All products are trademarks of their respective owners.

First Publication: December 2013

Produced by: Steve Mintz, Sr. Analyst; Hanny Hindi, Sr. Analyst; Larry Chin, Analyst;

Laura DiDio, Analyst; Barry Cohen, Editor-in-Chief; Manny Frishberg, Editor

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

Enterprise Readiness and High Availability ......................................................................... 4

Licensing...................................................................................................................................... 6

Total Cost of Acquisition and Ownership ............................................................................. 8

Security ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Included Features ..................................................................................................................... 14

Manageability ........................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 18

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 20

Microsoft SQL Server Reduces Costs, Complexity, and Security Risks for Mission-Critical Applications Page 1

Executive Summary

Database solutions are critical component of all enterprise IT deployments.

Organizations need a solution that offers continuous on-site and cloud access to a

growing volume of data, with five-nines (99.999 percent) uptime, and robust failover

systems. Enterprises are willing to devote considerable resources to meeting these

requirements. In fact, Edison has found that most of them devote too many resources

toward this goal.

Because of the mistaken impression that Oracle offers the only enterprise-ready database

solutions for mission-critical applications, customers are spending considerably more on

database systems than they should be. SQL Server Enterprise Edition is enterprise-

ready, at a fraction of the cost of Oracle Database 12c, while reducing security

vulnerabilities by up to 25 times, when compared with Oracle databases.

Oracle has just recently embraced cloud computing with Oracle Database 12c. Microsoft

SQL Server is the only database system with a proven track record, whether hosted on-

premise, on Microsoft’s Cloud (Azure), or on service-provider cloud implementations.

Microsoft’s licensing plans make it much simpler and more cost-effective to implement

database systems on a virtual machine (VM).

Organizations looking to implement a new database system or reduce cost and

complexity by migrating existing systems should seriously consider Microsoft's

solutions.

Note: All data in this paper is based on SQL Server 2012.

Microsoft’s forthcoming SQL Server 2014 release, which includes enhanced “AlwaysOn”

and “in-memory table” capabilities, remains in Community Technology Preview at this

time.


Introduction

Software licenses represent only one part of the total cost of acquiring, administering

and maintaining an enterprise-ready database system. Organizations must also account

for hardware infrastructure, security concerns, and potential add-ons required for

“AlwaysOn” capabilities, as well as business intelligence, monitoring, and so on. In this

study, Edison Group considered all direct and indirect costs, performing a

comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) analysis that details the apples-to-apples

comparison of costs in specific areas for both the Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle

database solutions.

In addition to researching existing studies and publicly available list pricing, Edison

created a laboratory environment in which the respective database management systems

were installed and configured, then tested for performance and manageability. These

findings were supplemented with reviews of the most recently published list pricing,

and licensing terms and conditions.

Our research revealed the following.

Enterprise Readiness and High Availability—Microsoft and Oracle both deliver

outstanding, enterprise-ready database solutions. Customers consistently rate both

very highly. Enterprise customers have achieved five-nines (99.999 percent) uptime

and better with both products.

Licensing—SQL Server offers much simpler and more flexible licensing terms than

Oracle, especially for enterprises using virtualization. This equips enterprises for

high availability (HA) without high costs.

Total Cost of Acquisition and Ownership—The total database cost for a four-year

Oracle database implementation is nearly five times as high as a comparable

Microsoft SQL Server deployment. While licensing accounts for the majority of these

costs, Microsoft is also marginally cheaper to serve (lower hardware costs) and

administer (lower database administrator costs).

Security—Since Microsoft made the decision to halt software development and

address security concerns in 2002, SQL Server has been vastly more secure than

Oracle databases. In the past decade, Oracle had between two and 25 times more


security vulnerabilities than Microsoft in a given year, excluding 2006: that year,

Oracle databases had 69 reported vulnerabilities; Microsoft databases had none.

Included Features—One of the biggest differentiators between SQL Server and

Oracle Database 12c is the number of mission-critical capabilities and features

included as part of the baseline product, including business intelligence and in-

memory client analytics. SQL Server includes more robust security features

embedded into the core product, such as enterprise-class data encryption, password

policy enforcement, event auditing, and granular permissions. With Oracle

Databases, nearly all of these features require additional licenses.

Manageability—It is significantly simpler to perform a number of mission-critical

tasks, including database deployment and day-to-day administrative tasks, with

Microsoft SQL Server. In addition to differences in licensing costs, the superior

manageability of SQL Server reduces TCO by an average of 21 percent in manpower

and administrative time.

In summary, both products provide an enterprise-ready solution, capable of handling

numerous mission-critical business scenarios. Microsoft simply does so at one-fifth of

the cost, and with significantly less administrative and managerial complexity.


Enterprise Readiness and High Availability

Overview

For many years, Microsoft and Oracle have delivered outstanding, enterprise-ready

database solutions that serve a wide variety of business use cases. Oracle is the pioneer

in enterprise database solutions, and since Microsoft first launched SQL Server, it has

consistently delivered a high-performance, reliable, scalable, and secure platform.

Customers consistently rank both solutions "very good" or "excellent." The customers

Edison spoke with have achieved five-nines uptime and better with both products.

Analysis

Oracle launched the first public version of their database in 1979, and they have been

pioneers in enterprise database technology ever since. Microsoft launched SQL Server in

1991, distinguishing itself from competing databases by virtue of its integration and

interoperability with Windows, Office, and other Microsoft applications.

Edison spoke with representatives from a number of organizations that use SQL Server

in mission-critical, enterprise environments. All said that they were able to meet or

exceed their Service Level Agreements with SQL Server, and they rarely called Microsoft

for technical support on serious issues. (When they did call, issues were resolved

quickly.) Finally, none of the businesses Edison interviewed experienced any security

flaws with SQL Server. All affirmed that the security of SQL Server and all other

Microsoft applications they used was outstanding. And with “AlwaysOn Availability”

Groups, enterprises had failover and mirroring to ensure high availability.

While both Microsoft and Oracle are capable of handling complex, enterprise

environments, they achieve that goal in different ways. Microsoft SQL Server’s

“AlwaysOn Availability” technology uses failover to multiple backup databases; Oracle

uses a grid of load-balanced databases, running concurrently. (This grid can be

distributed geographically, rather than housed in the same server farm.) With both

approaches, administrators can achieve five-nines uptime (the equivalent of 5.26

minutes downtime per server/per year).1

1 “Create a high availability architecture and strategy for SharePoint 2013,” April 2013:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc748824.aspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc748824.aspx


Supporting Data

A study by International Data Corp. (IDC) in Framingham, MA, found that Microsoft

was among the top three relational database management systems (RDBMS) by revenue.

Another IDC report (“Worldwide RDBMS 2009 Vendor Analysis: Top 10 Vendor License

Revenue by Operating Environment”) which analyzed the Worldwide RDBMS market

by vendors, noted, “Microsoft has been making steady gains in RDBMS, most recently

fueled in part by a sales process designed to target large enterprises and sell database

technology at a strategic level.”

Independent survey data from Information Technology Intelligence Consulting Corp.

(ITIC) indicate that both SQL Server 2008 R2 and SQL Server 2012 are either Number

One or Two in each of the crucial categories of performance, scalability, security,

management and ease of use. Specifically, the ITIC survey, which polled over 500

organizations in 2012, found the products had achieved tangible improvements across-

the-board. Eighty-four percent of respondents rated SQL Server 2008 R2 and SQL Server

2012 load performance “excellent” or “very good,” while 78 percent of participants gave

Oracle Database 11g database an “excellent” or “very good” rating. (Oracle Database 12c

has not been in production environments long enough to produce meaningful survey

data.)

Finally, according to a 2010 study by Alinean (“Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle

Database: A Comparative Study on Total Cost of Administration”), SQL Server DBAs

have the ability to run more mission-critical database instances per DBA than Oracle

DBAs. SQL Server drives more business innovation applications, and SQL Server

delivers a 78 percent savings over Oracle in total cost of administration (TCA), according

to the Alinean Study.

In addition to consulting third-party studies, Edison also conducted person-to-person

interviews with IT personnel from several enterprises who have implemented SQL

Server in enterprise environments. The companies interviewed include:

A large buildings material supplier, based in Australia and New Zealand.

A stock exchange in New Jersey.

A global mining company headquartered in Brazil.

These organizations have added SQL Server to their existing database environment or

switched from Oracle to SQL Server specifically to handle their Tier 1 mission-critical

applications. In addition, it provides them with the required high availability (HA) of at

least five-nines uptime. All have found SQL Server to be enterprise-ready, cost-effective,

and secure.


Licensing

Overview

Oracle 12c represents a new commitment to cloud-based computing. However, Oracle’s

licensing terms still fail to reflect the realities of virtualization and cloud-based

computing. On the other hand, customers who license SQL Server Enterprise Edition

with Software Assurance get unlimited virtualization and the ability to move instances

of SQL Server (active or passive) within the server farm. (Oracle customers need to pay

for separate licenses for each active and passive license; Microsoft does not charge

customers to move between active and passive instances while performing

maintenance.) This equips enterprises for high availability without incurring additional

costs.

Analysis

Traditionally, both Oracle and Microsoft have offered a per-processor database licensing

option. While this model was effective for many years, the increasing adoption of

virtualization among enterprises has made per-processor licenses much more complex

to manage—and much more costly. Microsoft sought to simplify the issue by converting

from a per-processor to a core-based virtualization licensing and pricing model. This is

fully realized in SQL Server, which introduces per-core licensing.

Understanding the impact of virtualization on the licensing costs is a very complex task.

The per-core licensing model is appropriate when:

Deploying Internet or extranet workloads, systems that integrate with external-

facing workloads (even if external data goes through one or more other systems), or

when the number of users/devices cannot be counted easily.

Implementing centralized deployments spanning a large number of direct or indirect

users and devices.

The total licensing costs are lower than those incurred under the Server+CAL

licensing model.

In the prior processor-based licensing scheme, an organization that moved their virtual

applications across servers of different core densities could be required to purchase

additional licenses. In addition, IT managers unaware of the potential requirement to

pay for additional processor licenses risked violating the enterprise's terms and

conditions (T&Cs) by implementing virtual cores in a virtual machine. This could result

in penalties over and above additional licensing costs. Under Microsoft's per-processor


pricing model, a database running in a VM equipped with four physical cores can move

to a server with eight virtual cores without violating T&Cs.

Unlike its rivals Oracle and IBM, Microsoft does not charge customers for planned

maintenance when moving VMs from one server to another. Microsoft waived the 90-

day license re-assignment rule. For example, a network administrator can shift or float

the VMs across all hardware without incurring additional licensing. This enables the IT

department to switch from active to passive servers without incurring additional

charges. Customers who purchase Microsoft’s Software Assurance maintenance and

upgrade program can run both active servers and warm, passive SQL servers using all

the same resources during backup, disaster recovery (DR) and when applying patches,

switching back and forth without restriction.

Oracle’s current licensing plan allows users 10 days per year to switch back and forth

between active and passive servers to perform backup, DR and to apply patches.

Businesses that exceed the 10-day-per-year limit—which includes nearly all businesses

that need databases for mission-critical enterprise applications—are charged an

additional fee.

Supporting Data

SQL Server Enterprise Edition licenses begin at $6,8742 per core, with a minimum of four

cores (i.e., a minimum of $27,496 for a four-core processor). 3 In contrast, Oracle Database

Enterprise licenses begin at $47,500 per processor (i.e., with Oracle’s “core multiplier,” a

minimum of $95,000 for a four-core processor)4—nearly twice the minimum cost of

Microsoft SQL Server. Enterprises that use virtual cores in a VM incur additional costs

and complexity. For instance, organizations could license SQL Server for less than

$200,000 for anywhere between two and 24 cores (virtual or physical). Oracle Databases

not only begin at a higher minimum cost; licensing costs increase at a much higher rate

as a result of their per-processor pricing model. At 24 cores, Oracle licenses will range

from $800,000 to more than $1 million—up to five times the cost of Microsoft SQL

Server.

2 All financial figures stated in US dollars. 3 See Microsoft SQL Server 2013 Enterprise Edition “Licensing and Pricing FAQ” at:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/F/7/4F74E127-827E-420D-971F-

53CECB6778BD/SQL_Server_2012_Licensing_Datasheet_and_FAQ_Mar2012.docx 4 Oracle calculates the number of processors as the total number of cores x .5. Therefore, a 4-core

server would have 2 “processors,” at $47,500 per processor, totaling $95,000. See Oracle’s price

list, publically available on their website:

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/F/7/4F74E127-827E-420D-971F-53CECB6778BD/SQL_Server_2012_Licensing_Datasheet_and_FAQ_Mar2012.docx

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/F/7/4F74E127-827E-420D-971F-53CECB6778BD/SQL_Server_2012_Licensing_Datasheet_and_FAQ_Mar2012.docx

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/pricing/technology-price-list-070617.pdf


Total Cost of Acquisition and Ownership

Overview

Just as the underlying database technology has changed over the past several years, so

have the crucial dynamics that impact TCO. The terms and conditions of licensing and

maintenance contracts are crucial for businesses to lower both the upfront acquisition

costs, as well as the ongoing operational expenditures. As a result of higher licensing

fees, administrative costs and infrastructure requirements, Edison found that the TCO

for the Oracle database was nearly five times as high as a comparable Microsoft SQL

Server deployment.

Analysis

The main factor affecting comparative acquisition and four-year ownership costs is the

significantly higher licensing cost for an Oracle database implementation, as a result of

their per-processor model, and the complexity of their per-core model. (See “Licensing”

section for more details on comparative licensing costs.) Hardware requirements varied

for the two solutions, but did not contribute significantly to TCO. Finally, Edison found

that average salaries for database administrators favored Microsoft slightly.

Table 1: Oracle Database 12c on Linux versus Microsoft SQL Server on Windows Server,

Hyper-V compares the software, infrastructure and labor costs for Oracle Database 12c

on Oracle Linux with Oracle VM, with the costs for Microsoft SQL Server on Windows

Server with Hyper-V.

Scenario 1

Oracle Database 12c

on Oracle Linux,

Oracle VM

Scenario 3

SQL Server on

Window Server,

Hyper-V

Differentials

4-year Total % Dist. 4-year Total % Dist. $ Diff. % Diff.

Infrastructure $60,877 2% $62,053 7% $1,176 2%

Database $2,075,520 81% $439,936 48% ($1,635,584) -79%

Administration $431,452 17% $409,196 45% ($22,256) -5%

Total TCO $2,567,849 100% $911,185 100% ($1,656,664) -65%

Table 1: Oracle Database 12c on Linux versus Microsoft SQL Server on Windows Server, Hyper-V


Table 2: Oracle Database 12c on Windows Server versus Microsoft SQL Server on Windows

Server, Hyper-V shows the same comparison but with the Oracle database running on

Windows Server.

Scenario 2

Oracle Database 12c

on Windows Server

Scenario 3

SQL Server on

Window Server,

Hyper-V

Differentials

4-year Total % Dist. 4-year Total % Dist. $ Diff. % Diff.

Infrastructure $62,053 2% $62,053 7% $0 0%

Database $2,075,520 81% $439,936 48% ($1,635,584) -79%

Administration $431,452 17% $409,196 45% ($22,256) -5%

Total TCO $2,569,025 100% $911,185 100% ($1,657,840) -65%

Table 2: Oracle Database 12c on Windows Server versus Microsoft SQL Server on Windows Server,

Hyper-V

Supporting Data

All TCO values are based on an HP ProLiant DL980 G7 E7-2830 2.13GHz 8-Core 4p

Server. (4 Processor x 8 Cores - Intel® Xeon® E7-2830 (2.13 GHz, 24MB, 105W).

As shown in Figure 1: Microsoft SQL Server vs. Oracle Database 12c TCO Comparison, over a

four-year period, total database cost will add up to $439,936 for Microsoft SQL Server,

which is a fraction (21 percent) of the $2,075,520 for an equivalent Oracle Database 12c

deployment. These estimates are based on factors including licensing, administration

and infrastructure costs. (Our complete TCO methodology is available in Appendix 1.)


Figure 1: Microsoft SQL Server vs. Oracle Database 12c TCO Comparison

Licensing

A direct comparison of the latest publicly available list prices indicates that SQL Server

is less than one-third the price of Oracle Database 12c. For example, a four-core x86

processor version of Oracle Database 12c Enterprise Edition retails for $95,000, versus

$27,496 for SQL Server Enterprise Edition in the same configuration, making Oracle

three-and-a-half times more expensive.

It is important to emphasize that the prices quoted above are list prices. Edison Group

recognizes that discounted or “street” prices will vary considerably, based on the size

and scope of the individual business’s licensing contract and their relationship with their

database vendors. It is also true that any vendor wanting to retain a specific customer

will offer volume discounts of 40, 50, or even 70 to 80 percent. However, as both vendors

offer comparable discounts, list prices remain a worthwhile benchmark.

Administration

Administration cost is calculated based on average salary per database administrator

(DBA); on average, Microsoft SQL DBA salaries are 5 percent lower than that of Oracle

Database DBAs. (According to a 2010 study by Alinean, “the average weighted base


salary for the Oracle DBAs came to $85,605, while the less experienced Microsoft DBAs

average weighted salary was $81,190.”5)

Infrastructure Costs

Infrastructure costs for SQL Server and Oracle Database 12c on Linux are nearly

identical, with Oracle being marginally more expensive. (Infrastructure costs include

hardware and operating system acquisition cost, hardware and software

support/maintenance cost, installation, energy and facility costs) Moreover,

infrastructure costs contribute relatively a small portion of total TCO, so they have a

small impact on overall four-year costs.

5 A white paper published by Alinean, Inc. “Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle® Database: A

Comparative Study on Total Cost of Administration (TCA)” January, 2010

http://alinean.com/PDFs/Microsoft_SQL_Server_and_Oracle-Alinean_TCA_Study_2010.pdf. For

full breakdown of salary data, see pages 5-6.

http://alinean.com/PDFs/Microsoft_SQL_Server_and_Oracle-Alinean_TCA_Study_2010.pdf


Security

Overview

In 2002, Microsoft announced a new product dictum: “secure by design, secure by

default, and secure in deployment.” They backed up this statement with an

unprecedented action: halting all new software development in order to identify and

eliminate all inherent security flaws in its products. That year, security vulnerabilities

between Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle databases were comparable—with slightly

more vulnerabilities in SQL Server. In the years since, Microsoft has been vastly more

secure, making it the safer choice for mission-critical applications.

For such applications, database administrators, whether using SQL Server or Oracle

Database, will implement basic hardening practices on their environments. Universal

best practices include placing servers behind firewalls, changing all default names and

passwords, and removing potentially insecure demo accounts. Other practices are

unique to the database systems, and outlined in Oracle and Microsoft documentation.

Analysis

In the past decade, Oracle had between two and 25 times more security vulnerabilities

than Microsoft in a given year, not including 2006; that year, Oracle databases had 69

reported vulnerabilities as opposed to none for Microsoft databases.

The US government’s National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Common

Vulnerabilities and Exposures database (NIST CVE) recorded 53 security vulnerabilities

affecting all versions of SQL Server in the years between 2002 and 2012. In that same

period, NIST recorded 379 security vulnerabilities affecting Oracle databases. This

works out to more than 7 times more vulnerabilities in Oracle databases, as compared to

SQL Server.

Supporting Data

Figure 2: Comparison of Security Vulnerabilities from 2002 to 2012 on the following page,

lists NIST CVE security vulnerabilities.


Figure 2: Comparison of Security Vulnerabilities from 2002 to 2012

In addition to NIST CVE, Edison compared security patches and bulletins issued by the

companies themselves. Microsoft issues "Security Bulletins" monthly on what it refers to

as "Patch Tuesday." Oracle issues "Patch Updates" quarterly on the Tuesday closest to

the 17th day of January, April, July, and October.

In 2012, Microsoft issued two Security Bulletins related to SQL Server. That same year,

Oracle issued 23 Critical Patch Updates for Oracle Database and the Oracle Lite/Mobile

Database. (Oracle's Critical Patch Update for January 17, 2013 contained security fixes

for 88 security flaws, including six fixes for the Oracle Database Server and Oracle

Database Mobile/Lite Server.)


Included Features

Overview

One of the biggest differentiators between SQL Server and Oracle Database 12c is the

number of mission-critical capabilities and features included as part of the baseline

product, including business intelligence and in-memory client analytics. Windows

management tools that incorporate advanced features like a graphical management

interface (a GUI) and scripting capabilities are also contained in the base product.

Finally, SQL Server includes more robust security features embedded into the core

product, such as enterprise-class data encryption, password policy enforcement, event

auditing, and granular permissions. With Oracle Databases, nearly all of these features

require additional licenses.

Analysis

In addition to the features listed above, the following capabilities are included in a

baseline installation of Microsoft SQL Server:

Storage and backup compression

Analysis services

Data mining

Reporting services

PowerPivot for Excel and SharePoint

Depending on the size, scope, and licensing plan of the individual corporation’s

database environment, the incremental costs associated with key add-on features in the

Oracle environment can result in much higher costs. Customers will pay separately for

the following features in Oracle Database 12c:

Oracle Advanced Compression

Oracle OLAP

Oracle Data Mining

Oracle Business Intelligence

Oracle Hyperion

Pluggable Databases


Oracle Enterprise Manager (Note: Oracle Enterprise Manager Express is included

with Oracle Database 12c)

Microsoft’s over-arching strategy is to deliver an optimized, flexible, value-added

solution that includes all of the functionality needed to run Tier 1, mission-critical

workloads and applications, out-of-the-box. By contrast, Oracle’s 12c database offering

takes a more à la carte approach. It requires corporate customers to purchase additional

products to achieve the same level of performance and functionality as the SQL Server’s

embedded capabilities, at additional cost. These differences have created a tangible

disparity in both the upfront acquisition costs, and ongoing operating expenses.


Manageability

Overview

The differences in management Edison evaluated with Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle

Database 12c come in the initial setup of the databases, and in performing basic day-to-

day tasks. In both areas, administrators could perform common tasks far more quickly,

and more simply overall, with Microsoft SQL Server than with Oracle Database 12c—

leading to significant savings for SQL Server users.

Analysis

Setting up Oracle Database 12c took nearly thirty percent more time than setting up

Microsoft SQL Server, shown below in Figure 3: Management Complexity Comparison –

Time.

Figure 3: Management Complexity Comparison – Time

Similarly, Figure 4: Management Complexity Comparison – Steps shows that performing

basic daily administrative tasks was nearly forty percent more complex with Oracle

Database 12c.


Figure 4: Management Complexity Comparison – Steps

In sum, the total time savings for SQL Server users came to more than 20 percent. Oracle

Database 12c was also more complex to use: on average, tasks could be performed with

17 percent fewer steps on Microsoft SQL Server.

As mentioned in the “Total Cost of Ownership” section above, Microsoft SQL DBA

salaries are 5 percent lower than that of Oracle Database DBAs. Therefore, equivalent

tasks cost 8 percent more with Oracle than Microsoft; the time differences discovered

predict an average savings of $6,519 in personnel costs.


Supporting Data

Results of the CMCS analysis are in Table 3: Comparative Management Costs Study (CMCS)

Results below. (Complete testing methodology is described in Appendix 2: Comparative

Management Costs Study (CMCS).)

Microsoft SQL Server Oracle Database 12c

Time Steps Time Steps

Setup Tasks 0:15:00 12 0:20:45 9

Microsoft Advantage

(Oracle - Microsoft) 0:05:45 -3

Microsoft Advantage %

(Oracle -Microsoft/ABS(Oracle)) 28% -25%

Workday Savings

(Difference* Weighting Factor) 1%

Day to Day Administrative Tasks 0:10:30 13 0:11:45 21

Microsoft Advantage

(Oracle - Microsoft) 0:01:05 8


(Oracle -Microsoft/ABS(Oracle)) 9% 38%

Workday Savings

(Difference* Weighting Factor) 3%

Test Results Totals 0:25:40 25 0:32:30 30

Microsoft Advantage

(Oracle - Microsoft) 0:06:50 5


(Oracle -Microsoft/ABS(Oracle)) 21% 17%

Average Workday Savings

(Time Savings X Total Factors tested) 8%

$ Savings

(Average Workday Savings * Salary) $6,519

Table 3: Comparative Management Costs Study (CMCS) Results


Conclusion

Edison’s primary research, customer interviews, TCO analysis, and benchmark testing

all indicate that Microsoft SQL Server runs mission-critical applications at a lower TCA

and TCO than the Oracle Database 12c platform in comparable scenarios.

With SQL Server, Microsoft delivers all of the necessary mission-critical capabilities

(such as business intelligence and AlwaysOn for high availability), simplified

management, and strong security as out-of-the-box features. By contrast, Oracle

Database 12c requires customers to purchase additional products at an incremental cost,

which increases both price and complexity.

Microsoft SQL Server also leverages the company’s tight integration with Windows and

other Microsoft server products, as well as the company’s years of experience in cloud

computing via Microsoft Azure. Using SQL Server and Windows Azure SQL Database,

organizations simply write once and have the flexibility and choice of deploying in a

public or private cloud environment.

SQL Server provides customers with superior capabilities and greater inherent value

across all metrics. Edison research found:

Superior TCO—Microsoft SQL Server on Window Server OS delivers the lowest

TCO over a four-year period. An Oracle database implementation–on Windows

Server or Linux–costs nearly five times as much as an equivalent SQL Server

implementation.

Pricing and Licensing–SQL Server delivers better price, performance and licensing

T&C. Microsoft offers much greater out-of-the-box functionality and ease of use, and

at a better price than Oracle’s 12c. In the database licensing category, Oracle list

pricing is 245 percent higher than SQL Server.

Security–Since 2002, the NIST CVE has recorded just 53 security vulnerabilities in

the SQL Server database, compared to 379 security flaws in the Oracle database

during the same period. Oracle databases have racked up seven times more security

issues than Microsoft.

Manageability—SQL Server requires fewer resources to deploy, develop, manage

and maintain than Oracle Database 12c, which can, over the product lifecycle,

contribute to lowering TCO by an average of 21 percent in administrative time.


Appendices

Appendix 1: Total Cost of Ownership Model and Assumptions

The purpose of this Total Cost of Ownership study is to analyze, compare, and

summarize direct and indirect costs to deploy two comparable database systems, Oracle

Database 12c and Microsoft SQL Server, on a defined infrastructure for a period of four

years.

Edison selected the HP DL980 G7 server with four 8-core processors as the baseline

hardware across two different operating system (OS) platforms: Oracle Linux and

Windows Sever and two different database platforms, Oracle Database 12c and

Microsoft SQL Server.

The scenarios are defined as follows:

Scenario 1: Oracle Database 12c on Oracle Linux, Oracle VM.

Scenario 2: Oracle Database 12c on Windows Server.

Scenario 3: SQL Server on Window Server, Hyper-V.

The TCO Model consists of three major cost categories: Infrastructure, Database, and

Administration.

Infrastructure–including acquisition and support cost of hardware and OS as well as

facility cost associated with hardware itself. Hardware platform used in the model is

HP ProLiant DL980 G7 E7-2830 2.13GHz 8-Core 4p Server. (4 Processor x 8 Cores -

Intel® Xeon® E7-2830 (2.13 GHz, 24MB, 105W). Support costs include:

HP Support Plus 24 for Linux Red Hat ProLiant DL980 Service.

HP Support Plus 24 for Microsoft OS ProLiant DL980 Service.

HP 4 hour 24x7 ProLiant DL980 Hardware Support.6

Database–Licensing and support cost associated with the two database platforms:

Oracle Database 12c and Microsoft SQL Server. Additional Oracle Database add-on

costs (Advanced Security, Diagnostics, Tuning) are considered in the cost calculation

6 See pricing at http://shopping1.hp.com

http://shopping1.hp.com/


in order to match the features sets for the comparison. Database Annual

Maintenance Support are calculated using 22 percent of total database license cost

for Oracle Database 12c and 25 percent for Microsoft SQL Server.

Administration–Cost associated Database Administrator (DBA) and other

administrative cost elements for ongoing management of both hardware and

software are based on data and content from a 2010 Alinean study,7 augmented with

validation based on Edison's CMCS methodology. Please see Appendix 2:

Comparative Management Costs Study (CMCS) for more details.

Edison collected data across these three categories to establish as close to an “apples-to-

apples” comparison as is possible. List prices of hardware and software were used from

various publicly published sources. Other industry studies also were used for non-

pricing components of the TCO model.

It is the intent of this TCO model to provide verifiable quantitative results that enable

users to gain insight about cost difference in deployment and management between

Oracle Database 12c and Microsoft SQL Server. This TCO model is not designed to

address individual company situations including its negotiation capability regarding

discounts, or service bundling.

Appendix 2: Comparative Management Costs Study (CMCS)

The Methodology Defined

Edison Comparative Manageability Cost Studies methodology is a product

manageability cost evaluation process. The products in question are compared against a

set of task-oriented objective and subjective metrics to derive an accurate set of

analytical results. The outcome of this study determines the comparative management

cost (CMC) incurred by managing and operating the products in a production

environment.

7 A white paper published by Alinean, Inc. “Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle® Database: A

Comparative Study on Total Cost of Administration (TCA)” January, 2010

http://alinean.com/PDFs/Microsoft_SQL_Server_and_Oracle-Alinean_TCA_Study_2010.pdf. For

full breakdown of salary data, see pages 5-6.

http://alinean.com/PDFs/Microsoft_SQL_Server_and_Oracle-Alinean_TCA_Study_2010.pdf


The Study

The study is the baseline checklist of standard administration tasks routinely performed,

quantitatively and qualitatively compared in order to determine, on a task-by-task basis,

which product is superior. This is measured primarily in terms of ease of administration

and secondarily (for certain tasks only) in terms of system speed of execution—the wall-

clock time it takes for the system in question to complete a job once it has been

submitted by an administrator. This study applies a set of quantitative metrics

developed by Edison Group to a list of tasks typically thought of as qualitative, to derive

a set of CMCS statistics that reveal the real difference in management costs for the two

products.

Tasks

Edison defines a task as a complete logical activity, composed of one or more steps, all of

which effect a significant alteration on the state of the device or software program that

accomplishes a specific work goal. Each task is measured for time and complexity. Time

and complexity, as used in the study, are defined as follows:

Time

Defined as the amount of time it takes to perform a given task. For certain

(asynchronous) tasks, when a job can be run in the background so that the administrator

can use the time for accomplishing other tasks, time is measured strictly in terms of the

time it takes the administrator to perform the steps to configure, initiate, and submit a

given task.

For other (synchronous) tasks in the study that demand the administrator’s full attention

and prevent the accomplishment of other tasks (as in performing a hot recovery

operation on a live database), time is measured to include both the time it takes for an

administrator to configure/execute the task in question as well as the time it takes the

system to complete the task. All time metrics are measured in wall-clock time.

Complexity

Complexity is measured using a proprietary metric devised by Edison Group: it is the

number of system-affecting steps it takes to complete a given task, where a step is

defined as a task component that effects a change of state to the system under test.

Because not all steps have the same inherent complexity, each step is further broken

down into increments to account for the difference. An increment is a decision point that

the user must make to complete a step. Increments are technically defined as a part of a


step that will have a measurable effect on the state or execution path of that step in the

task process, but which in and of itself does not effect a change upon the underlying

system state until the step being executed is complete. For example, selecting Basic vs.

Advanced Install with the installation wizard is an increment and not a step.

Complexity is then measured in terms of number of steps, but taking into account

the following factors:

The number of increments it takes to complete each step.

Whether or not instrumentation for a given step is GUI-based or requires the use of a

command line/scripting interface.

Whether or not the task requires a context switch between multiple interfaces in

order to be completed.

If a context switch exists, then additional steps will be added to the total step count

for a given task.

89 fifth avenue, 7th floor new york, ny 10003 www ... · pdf file89 fifth avenue, 7th floor...

Documents