Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

For $4,000 you can get yourself a shiny new Dell rack server with dual 8-core E5 Xeon CPUs and 192GB of memory.

To license SQL Server Standard on that inexpensive device would cost $28,640, and would, as the blog post mentions, limit you to 1/3rd of that memory per instance.

Databases live on memory, and 64GB just isn't a lot these days (nor is it "Enterprise" when it is vastly exceeded by a very small workgroup server). Their point is absolutely valid, and it is very strange that while memory capacities have exploded, the memory limit is the same that it was with SQL Server 2008 R2 (prior editions didn't handicap memory like this).




I don't know much about MS SQL Server or database in general, what would you guys consider free and open source alternatives to MS and Oracle Enterprise offerings?

Where does mysql stand in all this?

Thanks.


Postgres has been getting a bit of interest from a few people in the MS dev community recently, e.g. http://datachomp.com/archives/im-leaving-sql-server-for-post...


Postgresql. Mysql is missing far too many basic features to be considered. One of the big reasons that so many fad driven developers jumped ship from mysql to nosql "dbs" was just because mysql can't even do online schema changes.


That's a crazy deal, my Dell R610s with dual 6-core CPUs and 32GB RAM ran me about $4K each.

This was 2 1/2 years ago mind you, but I wouldn't mind the extra cores now.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: