0

I am trying to convince management to switch from SQL Server, to MySQL on Linux. This is very much a windows house, and management seems very wary of using Linux.

Can anyone provide hard facts showing Linux is more stable, higher performance than windows for running a DB server? And any other advantages?

Also, nobody here knows how to administer a Linux server, to the resistance is sociological as well as technical.

Thanks!

Jacko
  • 12,665
  • 18
  • 75
  • 126
  • 12
    Let's sum it up. You don't have any proof that Linux + MySQL is better than Windows + SQL Server and what is more people have experience with the latter but not with the former and on top of it all people just don't want to migrate. Then why for Google's sake do you want to change stuff? – Stilgar Jul 04 '10 at 12:22
  • 12
    This is ironic. If **you** don't know any such facts, why do you want to convince them to switch? Your motivation seems purely sociological. Maybe you need to learn how to play their game and stop trying to get them to play yours. – IVlad Jul 04 '10 at 12:23
  • sociological is the wrong word. It could be instead "ideological". But we know that in business ideology is not enough, so he's searching for technical or whatever reasons to convince them. – ShinTakezou Jul 04 '10 at 12:32
  • 7
    Even if Linux were more stable than Windows (and I believe this or I wouldn't be using Linux), it doesn't follow that MySQL is more stable than SQL Server. And, given that no-one there knows diddly squat about Linux, whey _should_ they convert? It sounds like a huge risk for unknown (possibly dubious) benefits. – paxdiablo Jul 04 '10 at 12:34
  • 1
    @Stilgar, @IVlad: People who have used unix and windows systems know from their own experience that unix systems are generally much more stable than windows (I haven't met a single person experienced with both who would say otherwise). While this is generally true, you need hard proofs to convince other people to switch - personal experience doesn't look nice on paper :). Especially to management types :). – slacker Jul 04 '10 at 12:43
  • 3
    The time used to be when I would have my Unix desktops and servers stay up for weeks or months at a time and my Windows desktops rebooted one or more times per day. I didn't even have Windows servers because I thought I couldn't trust them. Now our Windows and Unix systems are rebooted about the same frequency -- once per month, sometimes more, but for scheduled patching -- and rarely go down on their own. Generally I find that the services (software) need more care and feeding than the hardware/OS. – tvanfosson Jul 04 '10 at 12:47
  • Though I do agree that if nobody at this shop has any experience with Unix, switching isn't necessarily a great idea. The costs of running inferior software are probably much smaller than the costs of retraining the admins (and any mistakes they make before they get enough experience with new soft). – slacker Jul 04 '10 at 12:48
  • 1
    @slacker - I'd be interested in knowing what versions of Windows you're talking about. I've done both Windows and Unix and with W2K3 and onward don't see very many OS issues that cause unscheduled downtime. I'm not an MS fan, but while your experience jibes with my past experience, it doesn't match up with my current experience. – tvanfosson Jul 04 '10 at 12:57
  • @slacker - I never made any statement about which one is much more stable, I merely called the OP's post ironic, which it is. Assuming you are right, the OP should know the reasons he's trying to get management to switch. As the question stands right now, it seems like he has no good arguments for switching, hence my comment. – IVlad Jul 04 '10 at 13:19

3 Answers3

23

Facts

  1. It is a 'windows' house
  2. They have good experience with MS Windows and SQL Server
  3. They have no experience in *nix administration

Conclusion

Forget it. Even if you found prove that Linux+MySQL is more stable or more performant, then there would still be enough good arguments to not change the environment.

Andreas Dolk
  • 113,398
  • 19
  • 180
  • 268
1

You first need to convince yourself :)

Have a read here https://web.archive.org/web/1/http://articles.techrepublic%2ecom%2ecom/5100-10878_11-1054385.html

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Marko
  • 71,361
  • 28
  • 124
  • 158
  • 2
    The source is really autdated. 2003? Come one that's ages in IT. – Stilgar Jul 04 '10 at 12:44
  • You're totally right I didn't notice that. But either way - a quick Google search will find you lots of articles weighing in the pros and cons of either server. – Marko Jul 04 '10 at 21:02
1

Well, nowadays I don't think it's about stability anymore - that argument was a big marketing tactic for Linux. The biggest difference is the fact that Windows + SQL Server is not free, and actually quite expensive.

I think your best option would be to get Ubuntu installed on a machine and let them have a play with it and see how they like it.

But your biggest argument would be price...

And I do sympathise with you - I'm not a fan of Microsoft, and agree that going Linux + MySQL is better, but like others said, they are already used to what they have, so it'll be hard to convince them otherwise.

Also, not sure how big this company is, but if it's big, then they won't care about the money saved...

xil3
  • 16,305
  • 8
  • 63
  • 97
  • 4
    This is a very biased answer. – Marko Jul 04 '10 at 12:34
  • 2
    The cost of software licenses actually is quite irrelevant for larger companies. It is a small drop in the ocean of maintenance costs. And notice we are not talking about a desktop system here. The question was about a **server**. – slacker Jul 04 '10 at 12:52
  • @slacker: I don't agree. Software licenses (e.g. Oracle) can be **very** expensive, especially when you have thousands of servers. I've done enough cost studies to know that this is not irrelevant. – Pascal Thivent Jul 04 '10 at 13:04