11g Vs SS 2008

Determining Database Value:
Oracle Database 11g Compared to

SQL Serer 2008

.v Oracte !bite Paer
.vgv.t 200

Determining Database VaIue: OracIe Database 11g Compared to SQL Server 2008Page 2
Determining Database Value: Oracle Database 11g
Compared to SQL Serer 2008
Lxecutie Summary .......................................................................................... 3
Perormance and scalability ............................................................................. 4
Microsot SQL Serer 2008 Dependence On \indows ........................ 6
Security................................................................................................................
Manageability ..................................................................................................... 9
Lxtensibility ................................................................................................. 11
Business Value ,1CO, and Business Agility................................................ 13
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 15

Determining Database Value: Oracle Database 11g
Compared to SQL Serer 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
\hen making a database purchasing decision, organizations hae many orces
that impact the decision making process. Database sotware is the critical
component o an oerall inormation inrastructure and the decision as to
which solution to trust your business`s uture success is complex and raught
with risk. Billions o dollars hae been wasted by organizations that hae
approached inormation inrastructure decisions as i they were tactical, thereby
creating additional complexity and increasing costs while decreasing business
agility.
1he ability to simpliy your inormation inrastructure, lower complexity and
enable change to happen transparently in your inormation inrastructure has
been the ocus o Oracle deelopment or more than a decade. Microsot has
been touting SQL Serer 2008 as an equialent to Oracle Database 11g een
though, Microsot is at least a decade behind Oracle in deliering true long term
business alue. Microsot SQL Serer 2008 oers little strategic innoation that
indicates they understand where the majority o I1 costs are generated and how
to reduce those costs.
Performance and Scalability - Microsot claims parity with Oracle by
citing leadership in the 1PC-L benchmark. 1he reality is that Microsot
is the only endor to run this benchmark. In head-to-head benchmarks,
Oracle has outperormed SQL Serer`s best benchmark by 332 and
at a price,perormance that is 61 o SQL Serer`s. Oracle also holds
the top three spots in the competitie 1PC-C or price,perormance.
Security - Microsot has claimed superiority in security based on
number o reported security ulnerabilities` howeer what they do not
say is that such numbers hae been recognized as red-herrings by
experts in this ield. Such accusations also ail to address Oracle`s
signiicant lead in both breadth o security eatures and independent
security certiications.
Developer Productivity - Microsot claims the lead in this area
because o SQL Serer`s integration with its own Visual Studio as a
deelopment tool. Oracle Database 11g is also integrated with Visual
Studio and the .Net ramework. Unlike Microsot howeer, Oracle also
supports other deelopment tools and languages such as Perl, PlP and
Jaa that Microsot either ignores or proides only basic support or. In
addition, deelopers ,een .Net ones, can make use o the adanced
eatures that only Oracle Database 11g oers such as serer or client-
side result caching not oered in other databases.
Business Intelligence - while Microsot has claimed that SQL Serer
is part o an integrated` business intelligence platorm they lack a
uniied meta-data repository or administratie interace een or
.vat,.i. and Reortivg errice. that are bundled with SQL Serer and the
separately sold Proctarit,,Perforvavce Poivt errer. Additionally their tools
are more deeloper` centric than end-user riendly. Oracle`s Business
Intelligence Suite shares a common meta-date repository and has the
broadest support or third party OLAP tools. Additionally, Oracle
Database 11g`s cube-organized materialized iews are integrated into
the database or any third party BI tool to leerage transparently.
Microsoft Office Integration - \hile Oracle does oer integration to
Oice tools such as \ord and Lxcel among others, Oracle also
recognizes the inherent cost, security, scalability, and inormation
integrity issues that companies ace utilizing those tools. lor this reason
Oracle embeds .ticatiov re.., an easy to use, web based reporting
and application deelopment tool that enables end-users or
programmer,analysts to build robust, scalable and secure BI or other
type applications quickly and cheaply. \ou can een conert existing
Lxcel spreadsheets into web-based applications easily. Application
Lxpress is ree with any edition o Oracle Database 11g.
Business Agility - 1he cost o managing change in your I1
inrastructure is the single largest cost o ownership. Only Oracle
Database 11g enable the capability to manage change saely and
transparently while making eicient use o all your inrastructure
hardware so nothing is wasted. Oracle stands alone in oering this
ultimate leel o business alue. Microsot has no plan or business
agility and in act continues to create new proprietary standards such as
LINQ to urther solidiy their hold on your company`s uture direction
and reduce your ability to adapt when you need.
PERFORMANCE AND SCALABILITY
Oracle`s core business remains database and inormation management and with
oer thirty years o experience and more than 285,000 business customers
worldwide, irtually eery aspect o perormance and scalability has been dealt
with.
1he most important attribute o scalability is can the database handle my
workload needs now and in the uture As part o any company`s inormation
search, one important data point might be the 1ransaction Processing
Perormance Council or tpc.org. 1he 1PC attempts to proide a standard
industry benchmark or users to ealuate the relatie perormance capabilities
and more importantly, the price,perormance o arious combinations o
hardware and sotware stacks. \hile predominantly ocused on serer hardware
perormance, the 1PC oers users an unbiased and audited iew o database
sotware scalability as well. 1here are seeral 1PC benchmarks that hae been
created to test dierent workload types such as transaction processing and
decision support. Benchmarks are only useul as a comparison o like workloads
and i possible on similar hardware platorms.
Microsot has claimed benchmark superiority based on the results o running
the 1CP-L benchmark. 1he act that they are the only endor to run this
benchmark means that there simply is no basis or claiming superiority. 1he
1PC-L simulates a brokerage application while the 1PC-C ,order entry, is
generally accepted as being closer to a real world benchmark and the act that
almost eery endor, including Microsot participates, makes the 1PC-C
benchmark more useul or comparison purposes.
ligure 1 below compares Oracle`s highest transactional throughput or the
1PC-C benchmark to date
1
, ersus Microsot SQL Serer`s best
2
. Lach
benchmark was completed on a single serer rom the same hardware
manuacturer with sixty-our processors each. Oracle Database 10g was used
or this particular test. By out perorming Microsot SQL Serer in the 1PC-C
by more than three times, you begin to see the potential.

0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
Transactions Per Minute
TPC-C Industry Benchmark: Throughput
Oracle Database 10g R2 EE SQL Server 2005 EE
Iigure J 1PC-C 1hroughput

1
1PC-C benchmark submission date 2,2,200 64 processors on lP Superdome
2
1PC-C benchmark submission date 11,28,2005 64 processors on lP Superdome
By out perorming Microsot
SQL Serer in the 1PC-C by
more than three times, you begin
to see the potential. Oracle
deliered 332 more throughput
at 39 lower cost rom a
price,perormance standpoint.

ligure 2 compares the same benchmarks on a price-perormance basis,
essentially taking the total system cost o hardware and sotware used in the
benchmark diided by the number o transactions per minute achieed. Again
you will notice that Oracle deliered 332 more throughput at 61 o the cost
o the SQL Serer benchmark.

$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
$4.50
$5.00
Cost Per Transaction
TPC-C Industry Benchmark Price/Performance
Oracle Database 10g R2 EE SQL Server 2005 EE

Iigure 2 1PC-C Price/Performance

Oracle, unlike Microsot SQL Serer, can also scale database workloads
horizontally in a cluster using its Reat .ticatiov Ctv.ter technology. 1his
approach enables businesses to scale workloads well beyond the processing
capacity o een the largest aailable SMP serers by utilizing a cluster o
smaller and cheaper serers. Not only does Real Application Cluster technology
proide nearly unlimited scalability, it also deliers high aailability and
improed resource utilization. Both Gartner and IDC hae estimated that the
aerage serer CPU utilization rate is between 5-10. 1his translates into
signiicantly lower ROI or premium priced large SMP serers. Oracle Real
Application Cluster technology enables business to add additional processing
power as they need it or deploy excess capacity o to other tasks when no
longer required, all without impacting system aailability. Microsot SQL Serer
2008 has no comparable clustering capability, its clustering is simple ailoer
clustering that proides zero scalability and only marginally better aailability
than a disaster recoer inrastructure.
Microsoft SQL Server 2008 Dependence On Windows
No discussion o SQL Serer can take place without considering the impact o
the \indows operating system, the platorm by which Microsot hopes to lock-
in all uture sotware decisions and in some cases restricts your uture hardware
decisions as well. 1ake or example IBM`s Power6 processor that has
outperormed x86 processors 2-to-1 in benchmarks while utilizing the same
amount o energy to run and cool it. Oracle users could utilize this type o
hardware to sae money rom a licensing perspectie because ewer processors
would be required along with the energy saings. Microsot SQL Serer 2008
cannot be used on a IBM Power6 based serer because it does not support the
\indows operating system.
Other points o interest:
9 o the top 10 1PC-C benchmarks ,based on perormance, were on an
O,S other than \indows
9 o the top 10 1PC-l 1000GB benchmarks ,based on perormance,
were on an O,S other than \indows
9 o the top 10 1PC-l 3000GB benchmarks ,based on perormance,
were on an O,S other than \indows
8 o the top 10 SAP SD 2 1ier benchmarks were on an O,S other than
\indows ,one o those was not completed using SQL Serer,
\hen comparing the top-ten 1PC-C benchmarks that utilized either a
\indows,SQL Serer or Linux,Oracle combination, the
Oracle,Linux combination outperormed Microsot by an aerage o
54
3

\hile Microsot may claim to scale to some o the world`s largest workloads`
one should ask at what price` Oracle proides the lexibility to run on small
commodity priced serers running \indows, Linux and other Unix operating
systems while also proiding the ability to scale in an unlimited ashion on a
cluster o commodity priced serers. Oracle can also run on the largest, astest
SMP serers. 1hese are just some o the reasons why Oracle has been the
database market leader or more than a decade. As o 200, Oracle`s market
share was larger than its next two largest competitors combined
4
.
SECURITY
In recent years, signiicant security incidents ,such as the SQL Slammer
5

outbreak, hae brought the issues surrounding ulnerabilities in commercial
sotware at the oreront o customers` mind. Microsot is oten claiming that
SQL Serer is more secure than the Oracle Database Serer based on the
number o published ulnerabilities aailable rom sources such as the National
Vulnerability Database
6
. loweer, 1be vvvber of atcbe. i. iv it.etf a rea berrivg`
.

3
www.tpc.org top ten tpmC results where the operating system being used was either
Linux or \indows as o ,,2008
4 Source IDC 200 \orldwide RDBMS market share results
5 See http:,,en.wikipedia.org,wiki,SQL_slammer_,computer_worm,
6 See http:,,nd.nist.go,
1his is because the number o published ulnerabilities is not by itsel a good
indicator o the security proided by a gien sotware product because:
1. 1be vvvber of rvtverabititie. i. vot av ivaicatiov of tbe breaatb of .ecvrit, featvre.
ivctvaea iv a .oftrare rograv. A piece o lawless code ,i.e. ree o ulnerabilities,
may proide no security controls whatsoeer!
2. 1be vvvber of vbti.bea rvtverabititie. aeeva. airectt, of tbe rvtverabitit, ai.cto.vre
oticie. of tbe revaor. 1he Critical Patch Update documentation proides detailed
inormation about ulnerabilities in Oracle products and their respectie
seerity using the Common Vulnerability Scoring System ,CVSS, standard.
3. 1bere i. vo .tavaara aroacb to covvt rvtverabititie.. lor example, how
should one account or a ulnerability aecting a single section o code but
exploitable through arious interaces lurthermore, current reporting system
such as the National Vulnerability Database oten account or a ulnerability
more than once, thus artiicially inlating the number o reported ulnerabilities
or a gien product.
\ith Oracle Sotware Security Assurance, Oracle has been committed to leading
the industry in terms o sotware security assurance practices. Oer the years,
the company has deeloped strong security coding standards, and with oer 25
independent security ealuations the company has a proen track record with its
secure deelopment practices. lurthermore, with the Critical Patch Update,
Oracle proides one o the most transparent ulnerability remediation programs
in the industry, oering a predictable patching schedule and standard-based
criticality ratings, reducing as much as possible the cost and complexity
associated with applying security patches in Oracle enironment and proiding
Oracle customers with a superior security posture. Mea.vrivg tbe qvatit, of a iece
of .oftrare b, tbe vetric of vvvber of rvtverabititie. atove i. aoivg a ai..errice to cv.tover.`
8
,
customers need to holistically reiew the security assurance practices o a
endor and ealuate the security eatures that are most releant to them in order
to make the best security choice or their organization.
Microsot only began to ormulate its 1rustworthy Computing concept in a
memo written in 2002
9
. 1he concept might hae been new to Microsot but had
been an accepted practice by enterprise sotware endors such as Oracle rom
the beginning. Microsot SQL Serer has submitted to only two third-party
security ealuations. 1he irst was against the now obsolete US 1CSLC ,Orange
Book,. Microsot SQL Serer completed an ealuation against the Common
Criteria at LAL2 and is currently seeking its ery irst common criteria LAL4-

See Lchelon One`s research note: Security Criteria lor Selecting A Database`, dated
January 29, 2008

9
1rustworthy Computing \ikipedia
ealuation. Oracle's database was the irst to receie an LAL4 certiicate o any
type against Common Criteria.
One should also take into account the breadth and maturity o the security
eatures aailable. 1he table below illustrates Oracle`s leadership in this area
ersus Microsot in this decade.

MANAGEABILITY
I 5 o the aerage I1 budget is dedicated to operational costs, it makes
sense that by reducing the labor intensie and at times complex task o
maintaining a database management system, a business could reap signiicant
ROI.
It may be inherently unair to compare Oracle Database 11g ersus Microsot
SQL Serer 2008 in the area o manageability because each product has
traditionally sered a signiicantly dierent user base. \hile Oracle has been
supporting larger, critical enterprise enironments or thirty years, Microsot has
traditionally ocused on the needs o the lower end, small business or
departmental user. \hile database administrators hae historically managed
Oracle databases, application deelopers or other indiiduals, not dedicated
database administrators, hae traditionally maintained Microsot SQL Serer.
lor this reason, it is oten a apples to oranges comparison to try and look at
simplistic ratios such as DBA to instance managed or gigabyte to DBA ratios.
\hen considering the cost o management we must consider measures such as
transaction olumes, database size, and critical nature o the database. Users must
also consider the rate o change or the application or the database itsel as this
actor directly impacts the cost o managing a database as well as the oerall
aailability o the system. It is comparatiely easy to maintain a database with ery
ew users, low criticality and where nothing much eer changes than it is to manage
a ery high olume and dynamic enironment. As one CIO summed it up, ra.
feetivg cov.traivea b, tbe Micro.oft atb ava ove of tbe targe i..ve. baa at tbe tive ra.
Q errer beivg abte to /ee v ritb tbe erforvavce tbat re reqvirea ovt of it.
Coivg ritb .v.taivea, ovgoivg grortb of tbe teret tbat re bare i. vo .vatt i..ve. t`.
.igvificavt, .vb.tavtiat, ovgoivg grortb, ava it ba.v`t cbavgea for fire ,ear.,
10

Oracle has traditionally oered a great deal o isibility into the perormance
internals o its database. Database Administrators or years were content to
write scripts that accessed Oracle`s V> perormance iews and use the proided
tools ,e.g., 1KPro, S1A1SPack,. As the needs o the Oracle user base hae
grown, Oracle had to adapt to the changing reality that the requirement or
more inormation would continue to increase. Database administrators were
being asked to assume new responsibilities to meet these challenges, tasks such
as inormation consolidation, inormation liecycle planning, security and
regulatory standards. DBAs were becoming more inoled in higher-leel tasks,
leaing less time or manual, labor intensie and error prone repetitie tasks
oten associated with database management.
Business needed a database that could be sel-monitoring and sel-healing, one
that could help DBAs to tackle the most labor intensie and error prone tasks.
A typical DBA works an aerage o ity hours per week, much o their time
spent doing tasks that could be done by the system itsel. 1he goal should be to
not only ree up key personnel or higher alue tasks but to reduce human error
that can create aailability issues.
Manageability spans many disciplines including object change management,
backup and recoery, perormance monitoring and tuning, security in-depth
administration to name a ew. Many o these tasks require experienced ,i.e.
expensie, personnel and are ery labor intensie. 1o automate these tasks the
database would need to be designed in such a way as to shit the burden o
these tasks to the database system itsel.
Oracle Database 11g and Oracle Database 10g beore it, deliered on this
promise by signiicantly instrumenting the code and deliering best-o-breed
management tools.
Both Oracle Database 11g and Microsot SQL Serer 2008 bundle a GUI based
management tool with eery ersion o the database. Oracle reers to its tool as
Oracte vterri.e Mavager Databa.e Covtrot while Microsot SQL Serer reers to

10
www.zdnet.com.au Migration News: \indows to Linux and ice ersa April 24, 2006
ra. feetivg cov.traivea b, tbe
Micro.oft atb ava ove of tbe targe
i..ve. baa at tbe tive ra. Q
errer beivg abte to /ee v ritb tbe
erforvavce tbat re reqvirea ovt of it.
- Paul \oung, CIO \oti.com

its tool as Q errer Mavagevevt tvaio. \hile Oracle`s tool is l1ML based,
enabling ubiquitous access or administrators to manage enironments rom
anywhere while signiicantly simpliying installation, SQL Serer Management
Studio is client based. Oracle Lnterprise Manager Database Control oers
manageability reports, alert notiication, scheduling, object management,
security management and much more.
Oracle Database 11g also oers Oracte vterri.e Mavager Cria Covtrot as a
bundled eature. Grid Control utilizes the same interace and includes all the
eatures o Lnterprise Manager but it extends the management capability
beyond simply the database to enable end-to-end management and monitoring
or things like the application serer, serer OS and the storage tier.
ExtensibiIity
\hile Microsot SQL Serer 2008 oers a basic collection o tools, it oers
zero extensibility beyond those tools een though the user is basically orced
into using an entire Microsot sotware stack. Oracle realizes that data centers
operate in a mixed endor enironment. \e recognize that the aerage
administrator must manage many application enironments so Oracle`s
management tools were designed or these real-world enironments.
Oracle Lnterprise Manager Grid Control oers a number o management plug-
ins to enable monitoring and management o third party sotware including
databases, application serers, and operating systems.
Oracle also oers adanced management option packs or the ollowing areas:
Automatic, historical perormance monitoring and analysis
Adanced and automated SQL tuning
Dynamic and sel learning perormance thresholds or improed
management by exception
Patch proisioning and installation
Adanced Object Change Management

Oracle realizes that data centers
operate in a mixed endor
enironment. \e recognize that
the aerage administrator must
manage many application
enironments so Oracle`s
management tools were designed
or these real-world
enironments.

Let`s look at a ew o the dierentiating eatures between Oracle Database 11g
and Microsot SQL Serer 2008 in the area o manageability.
Capability Oracle Database JJg Microsoft SQL Server
2008
l1ML based
management console
\es No, requires client install
on all systems
Lnd-to-Lnd mgmt o
entire system rom
single console
\es No, O,S, middleware,
serers, or network can
be monitored.
Manage by Lxception \es, automatic upon
install - proactie
No, tracing must be
turned on after a
problem is reported.
Rerun workload
Storage Management \es Automatic Storage
Management is a eature
o all Oracle Database
11g editions. Supports
tiered storage, auto
rebalancing and
mirroring
No equialent
Online table
reorganization or
redeinition
\es, tables or indexes
can be changed ,e.g.,
moed, reorganized,
deinitions changed,
while queries, updates,
and deletes continue
Partial, Indexes can be
built online with
concurrent access to
underlying tables. No
1able online changes
howeer
listorical repository o
perormance statistics
\es, enables in-context
perormance trending
and dynamic alert
thresholds
\es but only or
reporting
Automatic database
diagnostic analysis
\es, proactiely and
automatically identiies
problems and notiies
DBA with correctie
adice
No, All perormance
issues must be manually
monitored and
diagnosed. Seeral tools
required: SQL Proiler, SQL
1race, Actiity Monitor,
ShowPlan, DBCC cmds

1he aboe table illustrates only a small number o the many dierentiating
eatures relatie to managing Oracle Database 11g ersus a Microsot SQL
Serer 2008 database. \ith oer a decade head start, Oracle users hae already
met and oercome many o the management challenges that the majority o
Microsot SQL Serer users hae yet to experience but will, assuming they
expect change to come in the orm o a larger user base and more inormation
to manage.
BUSINESS VALUE (TCO) AND BUSINESS AGILITY
\hile we hae mentioned some o the typical areas in which organizations hae
traditionally compared database solutions on during a purchase ealuation ,and
certainly there are more we could mention, perhaps the largest dierentiator is
dealing with business change.

1he Pressure to Adapt to Change

As the aboe igure indicates, Gartner Group has ound the rate o change to
be the greatest pressure on I1 organizations. Not surprisingly cost, aailability
and complexity all o which are directly impacted by change are also ranked
near the top, as I1`s biggest challenge.
1oday business is more dependent on its I1 inrastructure that eer beore. A
business`s ability to change is directly related to the ability o its I1
inrastructure to change. I the inormation inrastructure is too complex,
meaning that there are too many vvvber. o things to manage and too many
/iva. o things to manage, then change becomes expensie and it usually
impacts aailability o an application, either intended ,i.e. planned, or
unintended.
Microsot has long touted its superior total cost o ownership ,1CO, and
supports this distinction by comparing their pricing ersus Oracle. It certainly
would be easy i 1CO could be calculated simply on the purchase price o
sotware. Covvter !orta looked into the 1CO debate back in May o 2003 as
the debate oer ree` sotware was gathering steam. Ater researching a
number o studies, their realization was that tbe rice of .oftrare it.etf rbetber it.
free or vot i. .o tor retatire to tbe 1CO tbat it va, bare tittte ivact ov tbe ovtcove of 1
ivre.tvevt aeci.iov. for vav, vrcba.er.. v vo.t ca.e., tbe rice of .oftrare rorea to be te..
tbav 10 of tbe totat co.t of orver.bi.`
1he global inormation economy has orced business to rethink the dimensions
o what it means to be aailable and secure and where true long-term database
alue exists. 1he increasing dependence on inormation technology means that
business cannot adapt to change unless its I1 inrastructure can also adapt,
aster and at a lower cost and most importantly without impacting aailability.
So bv.ive.. agitit, is becoming the dierentiating actor in any strategic I1
inrastructure decision because that is where the greatest risk exists.
1erms like agility get thrown around by marketers about as much as the term
1CO, at Oracle we hae tried to clearly deine what I1 agility means and to
engineer towards that goal:
the ability of the business to innovate its
information infrastructure while sustaining the
system's availability and utilizing all computing
resources to their fullest potential to reduce
capital and operational costs.
1he reason why changing an I1 enironment is oten slow and raught with
pain is because there has neer been a sae way to accurately test changes beore
they are introduced into production. Oracle Database 11g addresses this issue
with the introduction o the Oracle Reat .ticatiov 1e.tivg option. Instead o
using scripts and simulations, Real Application 1esting can capture the actual
production workload and replay that workload on a changed test enironment.
Real Application 1esting will analyze the impact o those changes on the
production workload. Since this is not a simulation but the actual workload, we
can compare execution perormance and drill into and ix those issues that may
hae become broken or regressed in perormance. So Oracle Real Application
1esting enables organizations to test saely, accurately and in a shorter amount
o time. 1his means that companies can innoate aster.
Microsot SQL Serer 2008 and all o the other Microsot deelopment tools
that are oered do not proide the accuracy, ease, and speed that Oracle
Database 11g can. 1esting can take many man months to accomplish and is
crucial to enabling change, howeer Microsot SQL Serer not only oers no
equialent, it does not een oer the underlying inrastructure to make change
happen saely.
Oracle Database 11g has engineered a sae and cost eectie adaptie
inrastructure. As preiously mentioned, Oracte Reat .ticatiov Ctv.terivg enables
you to scale to additional serer nodes on demand and balance workloads
across them automatically without downtime. So adaptie scalability along with
Microsot SQL Serer and all o
the other Microsot deelopment
tools that are oered do not
proide the accuracy, ease, and
speed that Oracle Database 11g
can.

high aailability on low cost commodity serers proides companies an
extremely agile inormation inrastructure on which to build or uture change.
Data Cvara, a bundled eature o Oracle Database 11g Lnterprise Ldition can
maintain disaster recoery sites much in the manner o SQL Serer 2008 Data
Mirroring. Data Guard howeer enables organizations to make use o this
redundant inrastructure by oloading production reporting workloads and
backups rom the production serer. Data Guard can also automate the
maintenance o test enironments to speed deelopment. Indeed, with Oracle
Database 11g, the .ctire Data Cvara option can enable your organization to
utilize its standby enironment or complete read,write testing while continuing
to capture data changes rom production in case o an outage. Used in
conjunction with Real Application 1esting, organizations can signiicantly
reduce the time and expense o maintaining test enironments or cost eectie
business agility.
Oracle`s adanced architecture also enables a unique eature known as ta.bbac/
1ecbvotog, that is essentially a rewind button or the database. \hile it can be
used to ix human error such as the deletion o a single customer, or to back
out the changes made by an inadertently executed batch job, deelopers
wanting to return a test database to some prior state ater testing, quickly and
without DBA inolement, also use llashback.
low much alue does your business place on the ability to introduce change
into the inormation inrastructure saely and quickly while utilizing all o your
computing resources to their ullest adantage low many years will it take or
Microsot to oer the same capability and can your organization accept the
risk
CONCLUSION
\ith the billions o dollars wasted annually to under-utilized hardware and
database sotware that does not automate complex labor intensie tasks we can
see the truth in the statement that the price o sotware itsel -- whether it's
ree or not -- is so low relatie to the 1CO that it may hae little impact on the
outcome o I1 inestment..` \hile Microsot oers a lower purchase price
than Oracle, in the long run does that not seem inconsequential in light o the
greater alue that Oracle Database 11g brings to an organization Oracle has
been ocused on addressing the real costs and risks built in to today`s I1
inrastructure. 1he risks and cost o maintaining, scaling and changing your
inormation inrastructure are sure to be the most important actors on which
an organization must base its buying decision upon. \hich solution proided
the best support or planned and unplanned outages \hich solution proided
the best tools to maintain a strong quality o serice \hich solution proides
improed disaster recoery preparedness, lowers testing and inrastructure
expenses and enables incremental growth \e are conident that the answer is
Oracle Database 11g. Let Oracle help your organization understand the alue
Oracle Database 11g can delier to your business.

Determining Database VaIue: OracIe Database 11g Compared to SQL Server 2008Page
August 2008
Author: CharIes Garry

OracIe Corporation
WorId Headquarters
500 OracIe Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
U.S.A.

WorIdwide Inquiries:
Phone: +1.650.506.7000
Fax: +1.650.506.7200
oracIe.com

Copyright 2008, OracIe. AII rights reserved.
This document is provided for information purposes onIy and the
contents hereof are subject to change without notice.
This document is not warranted to be error-free, nor subject to any
other warranties or conditions, whether expressed oraIIy or impIied
in Iaw, incIuding impIied warranties and conditions of merchantabiIity
or fitness for a particuIar purpose. We specificaIIy discIaim any
IiabiIity with respect to this document and no contractuaI obIigations
are formed either directIy or indirectIy by this document. This document
may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
eIectronic or mechanicaI, for any purpose, without our prior written permission.
OracIe is a registered trademark of OracIe Corporation and/or its affiIiates.
Other names may be trademarks of their respective owners.

11g Vs SS 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11g Vs SS 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determining Database Value:

Oracle Database 11g Compared to

You might also like