As part of the marketing for the new version of SQL Server, Microsoft provides comparisons for 3 other vendors. MySQL
made the list! This is quite an honor. The content is OK, but there are a few funny points.
SQL Server is integrated with Microsoft Update for security updates. MySQL has no automatic update patching.
I would love to have automatic updates applied to servers running in production. It would be even better if Microsoft did not notify me when servers were being stopped so this could be done.
Microsoft has the largest developer and support staff in the world. MySQL has approximately 70 developers and 50 support staff.
Apparently, Microsoft needs thousands or maybe tens of thousands of support staff.
Posts
The first thing I would do if I were managing a SQL Server deployment would be to turn off automatic updates. A properly run IT shop should evaluate patches in a staging environment before deploying them to the production server.
ReplyDeleteOkay, _you_ explain to the CFO why you didn't process any sales orders for the last two weeks of the quarter, after a patch was automatically applied to the production RDBMS and broke everything.
My experiences with MySQL Enterprise support have been overwhelmingly positive... rapid and on-target responses from people who actually know what they are talking about. The raw number of support staff is irrelevant so long as that remains true.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are you trying to say here?
ReplyDeletebtw, in some situations MySQL is more expensive than MSSQL !!!
"SQL Server has had zero vulnerability in three years according to the National Vulnerability Database. MySQL users have experienced many security challenges during that same time."
ReplyDeleteIn my previous previous previous job (very much a MS shop), the IT manager suffered from burnout when Code Red was running havoc on the servers, he had to take a sabbatical and eventually quit.
If MS has indeed improved since then, they can only be congratulated.
@Timothy:
ReplyDelete"btw, in some situations MySQL is more expensive than MSSQL !!!"
In what situations exactly?
-jay
@hingo:
ReplyDeleteQueries that consistently crash the server worry me much more than security vulnerabilities. Fortunately, there have not been many of them.
Karwin is correct - you DO NOT want automatic updates to production. Too risky.
ReplyDeleteI'm just a little surprised people are still talking about what database system to run.
Isn't that like talking about the whether you use brick or cement block to build your house?
from sqlserv-oracle comparison:
ReplyDelete"According to one expert, Oracle is five years behind Microsoft in patch management. Two-thirds of Oracle DBAs do not apply security patches."
whos that "one expert"? :)
Yeah, I also found this page fun. MySQL "only" has 70 developers and 50 support staff, but MS still considers it as much a threat as Oracle or DB2 to dedicate an entire marketing page.
ReplyDeleteThe TCO section is also pretty funny. I enjoyed, "Building a complete solution on MySQL requires additional third-party tools such as backup and BI, many of which are not free."
Apparently MySQL's TCO is higher than MSSQL because only most, and not all the backup solutions are free. I wonder what the average price is for an enterprise-level SQL Server backup solution?
"ESG reported that MySQL had more vulnerabilities than Microsoft SQL Server." Follow that link and you find in a footnote "advanced search of MaxDB, MySQL" was used to get the MySQL number.
ReplyDelete"The Bottom Line The CVE numbers don’t lie".
MaxDB is a completely different database server product.
It's always a good sign when people resort to such things. :)