I am considering the migration for 4 reasons:
1) SQLSERVER installation is a nightmare, expecially for 1-user software (Even if typically I have 3-20 users, sometimes I sell my software to single users: it is incredible to have troubles installing the DB, while installing the applicatino means copying an exe...). (note my max installation is 100 users, but there is no an upper limit). Software installs in 10 seconds, SQLServer in 1 hour. Firebird installation is much easier.
2) SQLSERVER runs on windows server only
3) My customers have all the express edition
4) i am not using any advanced feature, I am now starting using filestream, but the main reason for this is that Express edition has 4/10GB db size limit
So these are all Pros of moving to Firebird.
Which are the cons?
I can also plan to support both platforms, but this will backfire I fear.
MSSQL server is faster and better optimized for large databases and complex queries, especially if administered properly, while Firebird alows you to run without any administration and just forget about it. Although this penalty affects very small percentage of people using it, before complete migration I suggest you to first just migrate data and then test speed of most complex query on both systems. If speed satisfies you then you are good to go.
I don't see any besides need to thoroughly test all of your existing code for compatability issues.
Firebird is wonderful for server installations or single user installations.
It has an embedded version that is suitable for single user scenarios and you do not have to install anything.
It uses the same database file for both server and embedded database so you can easy go from single user to multi user and vice versa.
I have embedded Firebird 2.5 today in my freeware Software. It's great, and there had never been connection problems. I used multiple processes to do both insert and read long operations simultaneously and it all gone correct as was expected. I am waiting for Firebird 3.0. I recommend Firebird when you don't want to trust on other commercial database software.
If there is only one user you can use Sqlite which is even easier to manage than Firebird.
Related
I'm trying to use an old laptop (Win2000 P3 1.1Ghz 256MB ram) as an oracle database server for a small group project of 3/6 people on my college.
I don't need much, just some databases with 2 accounts, 10/15 tables, some views and triggers, however even the simplest database requires 1GB of physical ram (2GB of swap) and the installer refuses to overlook this need.
Is there a simple Oracle server database that I can install on this system without upgrading it?
I would really like to reuse this 9yo laptop as a server since it isn't really doing much besides gathering dust at a corner, but all the software seems to have high requirements for something so simple as a MySQL database.
11g won't install on something this small. Given that a Standard Edition license is a couple of thousand dollars, why try to run it on hardware that is worth a tenth of that cost.
You may be able to use the Express Edition (which has the added advantage of being free to use). The requirements suggest it can barely run on 256 Mb. Personally, I'd spring for a memory upgrade. Stick a note up in the college, as there's probably someone who has done a RAM upgrade on a laptop and has some old chips lying around.
I'd also dump Windows and go for a simple Linux install.
I doubt you can install any current version of Oracle on such a system. Have you considered using Amazon or some other hosting solution? See Need info on Oracle database server
Should I use for a web application Postgres or Oracle XE and why?
They are both available for free and for use commercially.
Why should I use one database over the other?
Well, with Oracle XE, if you hit the limits, you have to either buy Oracle or migrate your entire application to a different database. With PostgreSQL, there are no limits, and the software is completely free and open-source.
A few things to be aware of if you choose Oracle XE:
It will only use one CPU if you have a multiprocessor server
It will only use up to a maximum of 1 gigabyte of memory
It has a database size limit of 4 gigabytes for user data
Only available for 32-bit Windows and 32-bit Linux
If those limitations aren't an issue for you and you like the Oracle approach then give it a shot, otherwise consider an opensource server like Postgres or MySQL, which have none of the aforementioned limitations.
If you do choose XE and then later find your requirements have changed, the next version up of Oracle is 900USD for 5 seats, and an additional 180 per seat. This is in fact a bit cheaper than MS SQL Server afaik.
There are some good reasons to choose Oracle, particularly if you're a Java developer e.g. you can write stored procedures in Java, and I think there's native support for Java web services. Ultimately however you need to weigh up the cost with the requirements of your application. MySQL and Postgres will allow you to scale your application without any cost (other than hardware obviously).
You haven't provided much information, but unless you're already an Oracle expert, I see no reason to choose Oracle XE over PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL will always be free and is far more capable and more scalable.
And you can choose to run PostgreSQL on Windows, Mac OS X or Linux. I think Oracle XE is limited to Windows and Linux.
when choosing a db vendor be careful to match the demands of your app against the strengths of the vendors' db product. And watch out for their weaknesses.
For example, if you know your writes will be as frequent as your reads and both will occur simultaneously, then you'll want to know how each vendor you consider handles concurency. Vendors that rely on elaborate lock managers with complex lock escalation schemes are likely to bring you grief if you expect heavy load on you app. You'll spend more time trying to work around the DB's lock manager than actually solving your problems.
That's one example. Every DB has its strengths and weaknesses to consider. Do your research, find a site that compares vendors and make a choice that balances your needs against that. If you can get an eval copy, all the better to run some proof of concept tests against. Write scripts that pummel the db in some similar to what you expect your app to produce and go from there. While your at it, get the query plans for the SQL in your scripts from each vendor and see what you can learn from that about how each vendor's optimizer works.
There's more that can be said, but hopefully you get the gist.
What is your platform of choice? If it's Windows, I'd go with Oracle or MySQL as I have heard only bad things about running PostgreSQL on Windows machines.
Also, Oracle has a more GUI apprach to configuration so if you're not a Linux hacker, you may like it better.
Postgres on the other hand has a way superior SQL console and console tools in general are more developed and easier to use. Oracle has more tools but the decent ares (like PL/SQL navigator) are not free and the free ones simply suck.
Remember that choosing a database is a long-term decision so consider the possible changes in requirements for your application as well. If you are not prepared to eventually spend money on Oracle, better go with Postgres -- safe option. And good enough for most projects.
I'm writing some code that needs to work against an array of different database products.
MySql
Sql Server 2000 to 2008
PostgreSQL
Oracle 9i & 10g
Jet 4.0 (MS Access)
MSDE
Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere
Sybase Sql Anywhere
Progress OpenEdge
We have a set of generic integration tests that we need to run against each database product, as part of a continuous integration build.
I'm sure other people have had to set-up similar test environments and I would like to tap into some of that wisdom - what strategies do you end up using, what worked well or did not work well?
Some thoughts:
Separate virtual machines for each of the products, each allocated a small amount of memory (easier to manage for certain scenarios, or where we have slightly different setup's for individual products).
A couple of virtual machines or even a single virtual machine for all the products (i.e. perhaps an ubuntu box for postgresql & mysql, and a windows 2008 server machine for the remaining products) - I like one or two vm's because this is a more portable environment for running the tests i.e. when on the road / off-site, as my laptop would probably crawl to a halt running 8 or 10 small VM's.
And finally how have you tackled the prohibitive cost of some of these commercial products i.e. Oracle or Progress OpenEdge, and are the previous versions still available i.e. are there free "single-developer" editions available, or cheaper routes to purchasing these products?
We also use vmware for our servers, one vmware host per database. You should be OK with putting several databases on one vmware.
You shouldn't have much a problem with expensive software licenses. Oracle, for example, allows you to have a development license for all of their products. So long as you are not running a production DB on your laptop vmware, you should be OK. Of course, IANAL.
For Oracle, get the Enterprise Edition if that's what your customers will be using (most likely).
Be sure and take advantage of vmware snapshots. You can get the databases configured perfectly for running your tests, run your tests, and then revert the databases back to the pre-test state ready for running your tests again.
What we do here is (mostly) a VM for each configuration required, we also target different operating systems so have something like 22 configurations we are testing. These VM's are hosted in an ESX server, and scripted to start and stop when required so that they are not all running at once. It was a lot of work to set up.
In terms of cost of the Database servers, the kind of software we are building required top-end versions so the testing costs have been factored into the overall dev costs (we just had to "suck it up")
Oracle does have a free 'Express Edition'. It doesn't have all of Oracle's functionality but then if you are also running against Jet then that shouldn't be an issue.
Architecturally, it may be better off creating an integration testing farm of server(s) that are powerful enough to run the variously configured VMs. It could be fronted with a queue process listening for integration testing requests (which could be triggered using svn commits or other source control check in triggers).
For the most accurate range of testing, you probably want to have a separate VM for each configuration. This will reduce the risk of conflicting configs and also increase the flexibility of running a custom set of VMs (e.g. Oracle + MySQL + PostgreSQL and not the others, etc.). Depending on your build process, it may also allow you to run 10-minute builds.
A benefit of running an integration test farm is that if you're on the road using your laptop, you can trigger off the integration build after code check-in, run all the tests and have it notify you of the results. You can also archive each request and the results to help diagnose failing builds.
Oracle license excerpt:
We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing, testing, prototyping and demonstrating your application, and not for any other purpose.
So, you can download full Oracle versions 9, 10 and 11 and use them free of charge as stated in license.
Check downloads section at www.oracle.com
It sounds like you have a good idea of what to do already. I'd suggest the following VM layouts:
A Windows Server 2008 box hosting the following:
MSDE
Jet 4.0 (MS Access)
Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere
Sybase Sql Anywhere
Progress OpenEdge
On an Ubuntu or Red Hat box:
MySql
PostgreSQL
Oracle 9i Download it here
Oracle 10g (Use the free express edition)
I don't see any need to test against the full blown SQL and Oracle editions. The free editions are stripped down, so there is very little risk of that code breaking when you run it against the full version of those servers. If you had tested against the full server and went down to the free stuff, then yes some things might break, but by testing with the least common denominator, you should ensure good quality.
I have seen the references to VistaDB over the years and with tools like SQLite, Firebird, MS SQL et. al. I have never had a reason to consider it.
What are the benefits of paying for VistaDB vs using another technology? Things I have thought of:
1. Compact Framework Support. SQLite+MSSQL support the CF.
2. Need migration path to a 'more robust' system. Firebird+MSSQL.
3. Need more advanced features such as triggers. Firebird+MSSQL
The VistaDB client runtime is free. The runtime will never "expire at 3am" as you put it. Only the developer tools are licensed in that manner. You need 1 license per developer, simple. We even offer a really inexpensive Lite version with no Visual Studio tools.
Some other benefits
100% managed code - there are no interop or other unmanaged calls in the engine. This is a big deal to some, and others couldn't care less.
No registry access required - Most other in proc databases require registry access to look for parent controls, or permissions. VistaDB only does what you tell it to do, and will even run in Medium Trust.
XCopy deployment for runtime and your database (single file). You can xcopy you application, the runtime, and your database and run. Nothing to install or configure on the machine, no special privileges needed (we can run in Medium Trust or higher).
Isolated storage - You can put your entire database into Isolated Storage and run it from there directly. This makes it very easy to build secure click once applications that write databases in a domain friendly way for corporate environments. There is no need to store the user data on a shared drive or worry about permission mapping.
CLR Triggers / CLR Procs - You can write CLR Code and use them as Triggers or Stored Procs. We have just recently introduced changes to make it even easier to maintain a single CLR Assembly that can run in both VistaDB and SQL Server 2005/2008.
T-SQL Procs - VistaDB T-SQL Procs are compatible with SQL Server 2005/2008. Any procedure that works in our engine will run in SQL Server. That does not mean anything that runs there will port to us. We are a subset of the functionality in SQL Server. But we are also the only way to run T-SQL Procs without SQL Server (SQL CE can't do it).
I personally think one of the biggest features is the ability to upsize to SQL Server later. All of the VistaDB types, syntax, and CLR Procs, T-SQL procs, etc all will run on SQL Server. (You can't take everything from SQL Server down to VistaDB though, it is a subset)
32/64 bit Deployment - VistaDB is a single assembly deployment that runs both 32 and 64 bit without changes. SQL CE requires two different runtimes depending upon the OS, and cannot run under IIS at all. Access has no 64 bit runtime, and the most recent 32 bit runtime can only be deployed through MSI. The 32 bit version of Windows has the runtime, the 64 bit version does not.
Relational Integrity - VistaDB also actually enforces your constraints and Foreign Keys. You can specific cascade update, and delete operations. The person who commented we are like SQLITE is wrong in this regard. They parse constraints, but do not enforce them.
EDIT: They do have support for FK's now in SQLite. But they are not compiled in by default, and do not use the same syntax as SQL Server.
Medium Trust - The ability to run on a medium trust web server is another feature that many will not care about, but it is a big deal. Many third party controls can't even run in Medium Trust. We can run the complete engine within Medium Trust because of our commitment to 100% managed code and least permission required.
- Full disclosure - I am the owner of VistaDB so I may be biased. :)
Well, the main thing is that it is pure managed code - for what that is worth; it works not only on your typical Windows machines running .NET, but works wherever you run the Compact Framework and even works on Mono. Here are some noteworthy bullet points from their homepage:
Small < 1 MB footprint truly embedded ZeroClick
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 compatible data types and T-SQL syntax
None of the SQL CE limits
Single user, multi user local or using shared network.
Partially trusted shared hosting is no problem.
Royalty-free distribution - single CPU deployment of SQL Server costs more than a site license of VistaDB!
One thing worth noting is that Rob Howard's company, telligent, uses it as the default database for their new CMS software, "Graffiti."
I have played with it here and there but have yet to build anything against it.
For me this most interesting feature of VistaDB is that it can be run in Medium Trust environment. Which makes it perfect solution for creating small to medium .NET websites which can be deployed on server by copying and pasting (x-copy deployment).
And almost all windows shared hosting providers (like GoDaddy) won't let you run your websites in Full Trust mode. And also won't install for you any 3rd party binaries into GAC like System.Data.SQLite.dll if you wish to use SQLite for example.
I hadn't seen VistaDB before, it does look pretty cool.
Update: Received a comment from someone from VistaDB - their update model is only for getting new versions. Your old ones won't stop working if your license expires, which is good to know.
Keeping the original post here as IMHO the warning about expiring software licenses is still worth thinking about, even though VistaDB itself is fine.
It definitely seems 'more featureful' than SQLite, but I don't see anything there to justify the cost. The site seems to indicate that you can buy one license for $279, but it implies this is just a 1 year subscription. Would you have to then pay another $279 next year to stop your site falling over?
If so, remember to factor into the 'cost' how much inconvenience it's going to be when you get a call at 3am (murphy's law, it's always 3am) from your panicking customers because their VistaDB license has expired :-(
I've had this experience personally with some expiring software, and it's never good. You can send your customers emails and messages and flash their entire screen blinking red saying "YOU NEED TO GET A NEW LICENSE BEFORE NEXT WEEK" and they'll still never do it, and you'll still get the pain at 3am when it does expire.
I'm starting a new project here (Windows Forms). What's the best option today for a small (free as in beer) DBMS?
I've used SQL Server Express on the past projects, but time and time again I hear people saying that the product from Oracle is faster and more powerful.
It will be used in a small company (around 20 users) and will not reach the 4 GB limit any time soon :)
I don't want to start a flame war on my first post, so please point me to some link showing a good (and actual) comparison between the 2 products, if possible.
PS: I've heard about IBM DB2 Express too, but I coudn't find any information about it. (Marketing material from IBM doesn't count :) )
I would go for the SQL Server Express solution, unless you absolutely have to use a feature in Oracle that SQL Server does not have and you have no usable workaround.
Example of Oracle's strengths:
Analytical Functions in Oracle ROCK!
PL/SQL is better than T-SQL.
If you're going to scale up the system to 1,000's of users all updating the same small dataset
You scale upto multi-TB databases,
You need to scale to need big numbers of CPU's in your server (over 8).
need instant failover (RAC)
you really cannot afford to lose a transaction.
Maybe you can tell, I'm a big Oracle fan! But I think that Oracle Express is a commercial reaction to SQL Server Express and I don't think Oracle really deep deep down likes it.
You know with SQL Server that there is an upgrade path (SQL Server 2008 is soon) plus service packs.
SQL Express is also more "install and forget" than Oracle.
and it will integrate better with your IDE (if your using .NET)
In terms of speed, both are going to be lighting quick with such a small dataset size.
It would be hard to argue either way given the needs you outlined, that either would shine over the other.
What I will say is this:
You say you are already familar with SSExpress, then that is a good reason to stick with it
IMHO the tools with SSExpress are superior and easier to use than the Oracle equivalent
That said, I have much more experience with SS than Oracle so YMMV.
Sorry, no link, but one advice. Because we support Oracle and SQL Server, I know that getting fixes for the 'normal' Oracle database, is not something what I call fun. You have to pay for it, and if you have no tool which updates your Oracle system for you, it's a pain in the a.., if you ask me. Check out how the Oracle XE is supported with updates/fixes. I don't know, I only use the 'normal' Oracle (Developer) database.
I think it's great to rethink things every once in a while and that it's very smart to consider alternative products when you are at a junction to do so.
If you are comfortable optimizing systems and are dba level in skills, I'd consider PostgreSQL. I do not consider myself a dba and have middling database skills and find SQL Server Express extremely easy to use. Also, I've had products exceed the limits of SQL Server Express - the transition to SQL Server Standard/Enterprise is seemless.
I realize that this doesn't matter at a technical level, but Larry Ellison buys jets and prostitutes with his profit. Bill Gates is solving problems of immense importance to humanity with his. All things being equal, I always prefer to give my money to Bill Gates.
Is this any use:
https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://downloads.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/5138-9592-6028761.html
NB Registration is required
Both of KiwiBastard's points are very good and I completely agree with him.
If you really want a free alternative that is similar to MS SQL and supports growth should you need it, you could have a look at MySQL or PostgreSQL. SQLite also seems a good choice.
Surely you can afford an old Linux server if you work in a company with 20 employees.
100% SQL Express, more easy to install and maintain than Oracle.
IMHO the major problem with SQL Server, has for a long time been, no multi-version read consistency. Fortunately this has been corrected since SQL Server 2005 with the snapshot isolation level.
If your looking for a good RDBMS for a small project requring minimal knowledge for maintenance, SQL Server Express Edition is a good pick. The SQL Server Express Edition UI is much easier to understand than RMAN or the "easier"-to-use backup scripts included with Oracle Database XE which requires offlining your database.
Oracle Database XE is on my *** list. They recently released an ODBC driver for Linux that wasn't compiled properly (ld returns missing symbols for required ODBC functions) to be at all usable (10.2.0.4). With this kind of lack of attention to any reasonable amount of QA even for a 'free' product I would think twice about going down that road.
For DB2 Express-C see:
"DB2 Express-C™ is the free version of one of the most advanced
database management systems in the world. Why pay when you can have
all you need for free? DB2 Express-C is free to develop, deploy and
distribute.
It is a fast, secure, reliable, and amazingly scalable dataserver,
ideal for most startups and small/medium sized businesses. DB2
Express-C 9.7 is available on Linux, Unix, Windows, and now Mac OS X
as well! It also enables developers to easily handle XML through the
native storage technology called pureXML™. Whether you develop in
Java, .Net, Ruby, Python, Perl or pretty much any other programming
language out there, DB2 can be your technological advantage."