Link to the announcement:
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/dataplatforminsider/2017...
Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
81–90 of 90 posts
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about some features that really matter for an enterprise... compare the differences of HA options between PostgreSQL and SQL Server. Or maybe something a little more simple like point in time recovery. Backup and recovery is probably the most important feature of an enterprise RDBMS, and I'm sorry, but PostgreSQL doesn't cut it. It's really fun to develop on, but it's an absolute nightmare to administer. That mak…
Think there's plenty of missing tooling around postgres. But what are you lacking in backup with http://www.pgbackrest.org/ ? Or is it just that it's a separate package?
The point I was making is the lack of easy to use native features to perform typical administrative operations. When all is said and done, you may end up with a multitude of 3rd party tools to achieve feature parity with SQL Server , which is the particular comparison, and would be a limiting factor to implementing the platform in an enterprise that cannot withstand down time or tight RPO/RTO requirements.
In regards to SQL Server on Linux, I have just spun up (for testing) a three node AlwaysOn cluster with Pacemaker/Corosync, which is working quite well. Failover works as expected, however it is a tad slower than a Windows Failover Cluster. First impressions are very good and I would not hesitate to recommend the solution over a PostgreSQL or MySQL implementation. It is far less complicated and provides excellent HA and recoverability options.
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#83I would not consider it today because today it's closed and expensive. I can't get support on stack overflow for example. In a few years I might consider it.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/sql-server+linux
Why can't you get support on Stack Overflow?
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#84Does it have analysis services and Integration services yet? Last time it I checked it didn't. It's a big differentiator against open source stacks. If it was available on Linux then perhaps some of our clients would consider moving to Linux based SQL server.
SSIS, yes: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-...
SSAS, not yet, though few people use this and I don't know I'd recommend it on the same box. Is that a reason to move SSIS/SQL Engine to Linux and have SSAS on Windows? You'd have to decide.
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#85Probably Not for my use cases. If I really wanted sql server then I most likely will consider azure's hosted sql offerings. One thing I'm not so clear with , however, is linux support for sql server clients. More specifically Django?
What support are you looking for? SQL Server on Linux, is for the most part, SQL Server. Django support for SQL Server should be roughly the same on Windows and Linux, they're just client apps.
All my testing, which is inherently limited to the things I look at, show that apps seamlessly port over from Windows to Linux, unless they're doing something in the file system, or have complexities with SQL Agent and other subsystems. Maybe of the Agent limitations have been removed, I just haven't retested.
MS supports Linux the same as Windows, with lots of their systems people having spent the last year+ learning about the differences between Windows and Linux.
Are they all going to be experts on client interactions? No, but they should be able to provide support in most cases.
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#86No, because PostgreSQL has much better documentation.
Perhaps. There are tons of SQL Server sites and articles to provide information and details the docs lack.
Plus, the MS docs are now on Github and we can submit PRs to correct and expand things.
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#87Yes, absolutely, because of Microsoft's licensing model for HyperV. Windows Datacenter Edition is not cost effective for us, and that means we only run two Windows instances per host. By moving MSSQL to Linux, we can free up a Windows Server Standard license for other purposes. You can run as many non-Windows instances on HyperV as your want, but you can only run 2 Windows instances unless you pay to license every ph…
Be careful here. I suspect that licensing terms may change a bit with this.
However, you are mistaken. Windows Server standard allows 2 VMs (plus the host). Datacenter allows unlimited VMs. If someone told you otherwise, that's incorrect: http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/ProductResults.aspx?...
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#88Yes, absolutely, because of Microsoft's licensing model for HyperV. Windows Datacenter Edition is not cost effective for us, and that means we only run two Windows instances per host. By moving MSSQL to Linux, we can free up a Windows Server Standard license for other purposes. You can run as many non-Windows instances on HyperV as your want, but you can only run 2 Windows instances unless you pay to license every ph…
Be careful here. I suspect that licensing terms may change a bit with this. However, you are mistaken. Windows Server standard allows 2 VMs (plus the host). Datacenter allows unlimited VMs. If someone told you otherwise, that's incorrect: http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/ProductResults.aspx?...
No. The licensing terms changed from per socket to per core. Other than that, the rules are the same. If you virtualize Windows Server, you must pay for core licenses for every physical core of the bare metal, regardless of which hypervisor you are using (HyperV, ESX, Xen, etc.). You may then run 2 Windows Server VMs on that host. If you want to run a 3rd, you must relicense every physical core on the machine a second time. You can then run up to 4 Windows Server VMs on that host.
The licensing terms you linked to are for Windows Server VMs. When the licensing documents refer to an "OSE," they are referring to a Windows Server Operating System Environment. They are not referring to other OSs you may be running on the same host (remember, the host can by any hypervisor). Non-Windows VMs are not relevant to Windows licensing, even if you are using HyperV to host them.
The only difference between using HyperV and other hypervisors is: IF you are installing the HyperV role on a Windows Server, and only using it to manage HyperV, you don't have to count that bare-metal Windows Server against your license count, provided you are running Windows Server VMs on that host.
Remember, there is also HyperV Server, which is console-only, and free, but fully functional, and managed just like any other HyperV server. It is a slightly scaled down version of Window Core. You can run as many non-Windows VMs on that as you want, without paying a cent, or pay for Windows VMs according to the above rules.
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#89Does it have analysis services and Integration services yet? Last time it I checked it didn't. It's a big differentiator against open source stacks. If it was available on Linux then perhaps some of our clients would consider moving to Linux based SQL server.
SSIS, yes: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-... SSAS, not yet, though few people use this and I don't know I'd recommend it on the same box. Is that a reason to move SSIS/SQL Engine to Linux and have SSAS on Windows? You'd have to decide.
The reason is to get out of Windows licensing that is a mess, if you are trying to offer something on a cloud, outside Azure. In theory and in some interpretation, Windows Authentication (the only accepted auth mechanism by SSAS) requires all direct and indirect users to have a Windows Server CAL (!).
Re: Ask HN: Would you consider running SQL Server on Linux?
#90I am new to this and would appreciate an update on where to find a 'how to' for doing this. Thanks very much!