It is difficult to answer this type of questions rigorously in a newsgroup
forum. I'd suggest that you invole all the stakeholders and conduct a
comparative risk analysis on the migration. The compartive risk analysis
should cover the key risk factors that are important to your organizaton.
Note that cost factors are but one category among many others.
Some of risk factors to consider include reliability and resilience (e.g.
high availability, stability of the DBMS, proven platform, etc), scalability
and performance (e.g. scalability in terms of database size, # of processors,
memory size, partitioning, index maintenance, etc), manageability (e.g. ease
of backup/restore), operations issus (e.g. need for consistency checks,
availability of expetise, monitoring tools, etc), portfolio impact (e.g. what
is the mix of your installed DBMS and apps using various DBMS, dependencies
among the databases, etc), and supportability (e.g. vendor support, user
community, etc). Obviously, you would have to rate these and other factors
per their relative importance to your apps and organization.
Linchi
[quoted text, click to view] "Franco" wrote:
> From a "price point of view" migrating from the actual platform (2 node
> cluster Windows server 2003 with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition)to MySQL
> can be very attractive.
> In fact our management starts to think that way...
> My question is related to the faisability of this operation in a critical
> production cluster server.
>
> Is it recommanded?
> Pros and Cons?
> Why yes and why no.
> Please advise.
>
> --
Thank you very much for your contribution.
I really appreciate it.
--
Franco
[quoted text, click to view] "Linchi Shea" wrote:
> It is difficult to answer this type of questions rigorously in a newsgroup
> forum. I'd suggest that you invole all the stakeholders and conduct a
> comparative risk analysis on the migration. The compartive risk analysis
> should cover the key risk factors that are important to your organizaton.
> Note that cost factors are but one category among many others.
>
> Some of risk factors to consider include reliability and resilience (e.g.
> high availability, stability of the DBMS, proven platform, etc), scalability
> and performance (e.g. scalability in terms of database size, # of processors,
> memory size, partitioning, index maintenance, etc), manageability (e.g. ease
> of backup/restore), operations issus (e.g. need for consistency checks,
> availability of expetise, monitoring tools, etc), portfolio impact (e.g. what
> is the mix of your installed DBMS and apps using various DBMS, dependencies
> among the databases, etc), and supportability (e.g. vendor support, user
> community, etc). Obviously, you would have to rate these and other factors
> per their relative importance to your apps and organization.
>
> Linchi
>
> "Franco" wrote:
>
> > From a "price point of view" migrating from the actual platform (2 node
> > cluster Windows server 2003 with SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition)to MySQL
> > can be very attractive.
> > In fact our management starts to think that way...
> > My question is related to the faisability of this operation in a critical
> > production cluster server.
> >
> > Is it recommanded?
> > Pros and Cons?
> > Why yes and why no.
> > Please advise.
> >
> > --
[quoted text, click to view] On 24.10.2006 18:05, Linchi Shea wrote:
> It is difficult to answer this type of questions rigorously in a newsgroup
> forum. I'd suggest that you invole all the stakeholders and conduct a
> comparative risk analysis on the migration. The compartive risk analysis
> should cover the key risk factors that are important to your organizaton.
> Note that cost factors are but one category among many others.
>
> Some of risk factors to consider include reliability and resilience (e.g.
> high availability, stability of the DBMS, proven platform, etc), scalability
> and performance (e.g. scalability in terms of database size, # of processors,
> memory size, partitioning, index maintenance, etc), manageability (e.g. ease
> of backup/restore), operations issus (e.g. need for consistency checks,
> availability of expetise, monitoring tools, etc), portfolio impact (e.g. what
> is the mix of your installed DBMS and apps using various DBMS, dependencies
> among the databases, etc), and supportability (e.g. vendor support, user
> community, etc). Obviously, you would have to rate these and other factors
> per their relative importance to your apps and organization.
Cost items to consider: work time spent for the risk analysis times the
number of involved persons, work time spent for the actual migration,
time and money spend on training of personnel, additional downtime due
to less experienced personnel with MySQL, application migration efforts
etc. Then there is the risk of overlooking a feature used today that
cannot be used with the other DB.
My gut feeling is, that if you have a setup that works the way you
expect it, do not change it unless you have *really good* reasons. Just
looking for the price of the software is, err, a /bit/ shortsighted.
("MS SQL is a relational DB, MySQL is as well - so they are basically
the same.") I would not be comfortable to work for a manager that
follows this approach...
Regards
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
