11–20 of 90 posts
1. I work in a backwards enterprise shop where "no one ever got fired for choosing Microsoft" and it would be easier (read as "possible) to get IT here to support it than Postgres. (That said, they do support Mongo internally but won't admit that to software teams)
2. It's much cheaper than Oracle, which is the other "enterprise" database where it's easier to get an install done
3. It's not Oracle
https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/ says it all.
In a previous job we had a central master MSSQL database and several replicas of this database globally. This was all run on Windows (obviously) Were I still there, and were this arrangement still in effect, I would certainly be interested in migrating the installations on Windows to installations on CentOS, if only to make the server fleet that much more homogenous. So, to answer the question, to eliminate Windows s…
Cool, I've seen this mentioned as a potential reason, so it's good to hear of a real-world example
Why would I invite that headache when I can just install PostgreSQL instead? https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/ says it all.
We just build a giant new MSSQL cluster using AlwaysOn, configuration management with Windows Server Failover Clustering (which AlwaysOn is built upon for some low level functionality) is a HUGE pain in the butt. If SQL Server 2017 was GA at the time I would have highly suggested we just go with RHEL because Pacemaker/Corosync is a lot easier to deal with.
Out of personal preference, I like PostgreSQL a lot better - but when your business already runs MSSQL having options for deployment outside of Windows Server is a welcome change.
Why would I invite that headache when I can just install PostgreSQL instead? https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/ says it all.