1–10 of 90 posts
I'm wondering how many Linux people out there would consider running SQL Server on Linux in a production environment. If not, why not?
I can guess some of the reasons people will site but I expect there are many more.
First most important question to answer: in what way MS SQL Server would be better than PostgreSQL? Fields to consider:
- Easier to install? (apt-get install postgresql-server)
- Easier to use? (initiating the Sybase client library used to be terrible) (EDIT: it was installing the client library, not initiating it)
- Easier to manage? (Postgres is excellent in this field)
- Has important functions or features that PostgreSQL doesn't?
- Works significantly faster than PostgreSQL?
Going out of one's way to use third party software needs to give some benefits to offset the cost of doing so.
So, to answer the question, to eliminate Windows server installations in a predominantly Linux environment, yes.
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…
> If not, why not? First most important question to answer: in what way MS SQL Server would be better than PostgreSQL? Fields to consider: - Easier to install? (apt-get install postgresql-server) - Easier to use? (initiating the Sybase client library used to be terrible) (EDIT: it was installing the client library, not initiating it) - Easier to manage? (Postgres is excellent in this field) - Has important functions…
One thing I'm not so clear with , however, is linux support for sql server clients. More specifically Django?
> If not, why not? First most important question to answer: in what way MS SQL Server would be better than PostgreSQL? Fields to consider: - Easier to install? (apt-get install postgresql-server) - Easier to use? (initiating the Sybase client library used to be terrible) (EDIT: it was installing the client library, not initiating it) - Easier to manage? (Postgres is excellent in this field) - Has important functions…
Yeah, I agree. Each has the odd thing the other doesn't but it is hard to justify the cost of SQL Server over Postgres
For the benefits of readers who don't know, SQL Server Standard Edition is ~$2k USD per CPU core, and Enterprise Edition is $7k.
No, almost certainly not. Why would I use MSSQL in the first place, when I could just use PostgreSQL? The main reason I could see to use MSSQL would be "you're in a Windows shop already", and if that isn't the case, I don't see much reason for it.