5 ms·

Anybody looked into migration to the Linux platform? Realistically, what would be the advantages/cost?

lisivka 10y ago
MicroSoft Linux is still not released, so wait till it will be.
kabdib 10y ago
Not having to run Windows is a big factor. (Just so you know: I run a lot of Windows servers, so I'm not being knee-jerk snarky. This is a real cost).
- teilo 10y ago
  Yes, and the cost savings go well beyond a Windows license + SA. Being able to leverage an existing toolchain for configuration management and deployment is a huge cost savings, given that the Windows alternatives are both expensive, more difficult to use, and break a lot more (IMHO).
  - Scuds 10y ago
    apt install mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-setup-ubuntu https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-... and for the people doing docker https://hub.docker.com/r/microsoft/mssql-server-linux/ https://hub.docker.com/r/microsoft/mssql-server-linux/
    - teilo 10y ago
      I was thinking more of Ansible, but yeah. I've done SQL Server installs on Windows Core, and it is painful. Aside from the obscure PowerShell commands, you have to write a config file - just to get the damn thing installed. Rubbish. (I hear it's gotten better in 2016 though).
- keithnz 10y ago
  usually sql server dwarfs the costs of windows though?
  - joosters 10y ago
    It's not just the financial costs...
    - keithnz 10y ago
      my experience of running sql server on windows is basically it is reasonably painless. about the most annoying thing about running windows is updates as they mostly want to restart the box. If you delay your updates, it can take 40 + minutes to restart once you decide to install them
      - douche 10y ago
        The only issue I've ever had with MSSQL is that the Express version comes configured out-of-the-box with a set of defaults that make it nearly useless. TCP/IP connections are turned off, and you have to go through and set all the protocols to use the normal SQL port.
        wolrah 10y ago
        I've seen SQL Express used basically like SQLite a number of times, where it's only being accessed by a local installation of something. Also if you're installing it manually (and thus having to configure it manually) the odds are good that you're a developer in which case it'll also only be accessed locally. It's a sane default to not listen to the network. A lot of users won't need it. Those that do can enable it. The port thing is handled automatically when you have your network clients working correctly. For the record I'm a SQLite/Postgres guy, the only reason I even know about the port thing is having to help a customer troubleshoot some software that uses SQL express a few weeks ago. Definitely not a MS defender normally, but your complaints are really silly.
    - rbanffy 10y ago

MicroSoft Linux is still not released, so wait till it will be.

Not having to run Windows is a big factor. (Just so you know: I run a lot of Windows servers, so I'm not being knee-jerk snarky. This is a real cost).

teilo 10y ago
Yes, and the cost savings go well beyond a Windows license + SA. Being able to leverage an existing toolchain for configuration management and deployment is a huge cost savings, given that the Windows alternatives are both expensive, more difficult to use, and break a lot more (IMHO).
- Scuds 10y ago
  apt install mssql-server https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-setup-ubuntu https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/linux/sql-server-linux-... and for the people doing docker https://hub.docker.com/r/microsoft/mssql-server-linux/ https://hub.docker.com/r/microsoft/mssql-server-linux/
  - teilo 10y ago
    I was thinking more of Ansible, but yeah. I've done SQL Server installs on Windows Core, and it is painful. Aside from the obscure PowerShell commands, you have to write a config file - just to get the damn thing installed. Rubbish. (I hear it's gotten better in 2016 though).
keithnz 10y ago
usually sql server dwarfs the costs of windows though?
- joosters 10y ago
  It's not just the financial costs...
  - keithnz 10y ago
    my experience of running sql server on windows is basically it is reasonably painless. about the most annoying thing about running windows is updates as they mostly want to restart the box. If you delay your updates, it can take 40 + minutes to restart once you decide to install them
    - douche 10y ago
      The only issue I've ever had with MSSQL is that the Express version comes configured out-of-the-box with a set of defaults that make it nearly useless. TCP/IP connections are turned off, and you have to go through and set all the protocols to use the normal SQL port.
      - wolrah 10y ago
        I've seen SQL Express used basically like SQLite a number of times, where it's only being accessed by a local installation of something. Also if you're installing it manually (and thus having to configure it manually) the odds are good that you're a developer in which case it'll also only be accessed locally. It's a sane default to not listen to the network. A lot of users won't need it. Those that do can enable it. The port thing is handled automatically when you have your network clients working correctly. For the record I'm a SQLite/Postgres guy, the only reason I even know about the port thing is having to help a customer troubleshoot some software that uses SQL express a few weeks ago. Definitely not a MS defender normally, but your complaints are really silly.
  - rbanffy 10y ago