Skip to main content
D
dgraham-41-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 7, 2011
Question

PDMLink - Oracle vs MS SQL

  • January 7, 2011
  • 20 replies
  • 5964 views
Does anyone have any thoughts on the pros/cons of Oracle vs MS SQL as it
pertains to PDMlink?

David Graham
CAx/PDM Administrator


Emhart Glass Manufacturing Inc.
123 Great Pond Drive | PO Box 220 | Windsor, CT 06095-0220 | USA
Telephone +1 (860) 298 7377 | Telefax +1 (860) 298 7397
Mobile +1 (203) 376-3144 |

20 replies

Show previous replies
K
kjohns1011-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 13, 2011
Steve, I couldn't agree more, moving from 3.4 that was almost on autopilot to this PDMLink that requires user support and maintenance on a daily basis, 3.4 crashes since 2004 to 2010 equals @ one week of PDMLink crashes/browser freezing
S
sscole11-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 14, 2011

Getting back to the topic at hand and adding to Tim Atwood's response, MS SQL Server is a perfectly viable alternative to Oracle as of R9.1 M050 with comparable performance. SQL Serverperformance with Windchill has further improved with R10with furtheroptimization on the MSFT stack.

Anecdotally, in the field we are seeing more existingcustomers evaluate migration to SQL Server for lower TCO and alignment with other solution stacks in the corporate infrastructure such as Server 2008r2 and SharePoint. This is also particularlytrue of migrations from Pro/I 3.x to PDMLink, where Oracle licensing is droppedfrom thePTC packaging(note that Oracle licensingIS carried over on an equivalent user basis for Pro/INTRALINK 8+ migrations).

I have attached a datasheet that goes into more detail on support and scalability for R9.1 on SQL Server 2005. Note that R10 is supported with SQL Server 2008 (running on MS Server 2008r2). I have also attached a performance study based on SQL Server 2005 and R9.1 M050.

Steve

P
ptc-944201-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 14, 2011
Hi Vivek,

We have been using PTC's data management products in VMware environments for many years now (including 3.x). We use it internally during migrations and implementations and also encourage our customer to run the products in a VMware environment, budget permitting. There are many benefits, provided you implement VMware correctly. A full VSphere (formerly ESX) environment is highly recommended. You can convert an existing server into a VM image but given the opportunity we would suggest creating a clean image from scratch and re-hosting to it. Feel free to contact me directly with specific concerns. Hope this helped.

Regards,

[cid:image001.gif@01CBB3B2.4269C650]
S
ShawnLothrop1-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 14, 2011
Mark,

I think your confusing ESX and VMware Infrastructure. VSphere is VMware's new management infrastructure for both ESX and ESXi. VSphere replaces VMware Infrastructure not ESX. ESX is a custom version of Red Hat Linux from VMware used to run the VMware hypervisor. ESXi is a new smaller footprint OS designed by VMware to only run the VMware hypervisor. ESX is being phased out in favour of ESXi. Here are a few links to help clarify the different products from VMware.

P
ptc-944201-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 14, 2011
Shawn,



No, I'm not confused. I was referring to the environment as a whole. Many years ago when we started reselling VMware people referred to it as an "ESX environment". VMware has rebranded how they present their products. I know that ESX still exists. We have it running our PDMLink environment in our facility. The point of my original response was that if a company is going to implement a enterprise solution, like Windchill PDMLink, in a virtualized environment, don't skimp. I wasn't trying to sell Vivek the software…



The following link is to vSphere Hypervisor:

VMware vSphere<">http://vmware.sharedvue.net/sharedvue/iframe/index.asp?sviresizer=www.visible-edge.com&svnoresize=1&svpage=product_vsphere4&sid=870a1d0c08890a54900bd5c29e9021b1> delivers resources, applications-even servers-when and where they're needed. VMware customers typically save 50-70% on overall IT costs by consolidating<">http://vmware.sharedvue.net/sharedvue/iframe/index.asp?sviresizer=www.visible-edge.com&svnoresize=1&svpage=solution_serverconsol&sid=870a1d0c08890a54900bd5c29e9021b1> their resource pools and delivering highly available machines with VMware vSphere.
· Reduce capital costs<">http://vmware.sharedvue.net/sharedvue/iframe/index.asp?sviresizer=www.visible-edge.com&svnoresize=1&svpage=solution_serverconsol&sid=870a1d0c08890a54900bd5c29e9021b1> by increasing energy efficiency and requiring less hardware and increasing your server to admin ratio
· Ensure your enterprise applications perform with the highest availability and performance
· Build up business continuity<">http://vmware.sharedvue.net/sharedvue/iframe/index.asp?sviresizer=www.visible-edge.com&svnoresize=1&svpage=solution_bizcont&sid=870a1d0c08890a54900bd5c29e9021b1> through improved disaster recovery<">http://vmware.sharedvue.net/sharedvue/iframe/index.asp?sviresizer=www.visible-edge.com&svnoresize=1&svpage=solution_disasterrec&sid=870a1d0c08890a54900bd5c29e9021b1> solutions and deliver high availability throughout the datacenter
· Improve enterprise desktop management & control<">http://vmware.sharedvue.net/sharedvue/iframe/index.asp?sviresizer=www.visible-edge.com&svnoresize=1&svpage=solution_desktop&sid=870a1d0c08890a54900bd5c29e9021b1> with faster deployment of desktops and fewer support calls due to application conflicts
Regards,

[cid:image001.gif@01CBB3F1.F4202A30]
S
ShawnLothrop1-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 15, 2011
Mark,

I apologize if I misinterpreted your original post. To me your comment equating ESX with vSphere without an explanation could confuse new VMware users. Having sold VMware I'm sure your familiar with VMware's history, but I'll include a little history and why I believe saying vSphere was formally ESX is confusing.

ESX is a hypervisor while vSphere is a virtualization infrastructure platform. Your correct, back in the ESX 1.X and 2.X days all the VMware enterprise products were referred to under the ESX name. However, starting in 2006, with the release of VMware Infrastructure, the role of a hypervisor was separated from the management/infrastructure layer and ESX become a component of VMware Infrastructure. In 2009 VMware released vSphere as the replacement to VMware Infrastructure. I don't view vSphere as formally ESX because ESX still exists as a hypervisor for both VMware Infrastructure and vSphere. I've seen many new VMware users become confused by statements like "vSphere replaced ESX", as the statement doesn't explain how/why ESX still exists. VMware moved from selling hypervisors (ESX etc) to selling virtual machine management infrastructure (vSphere). Today everyone (VMware, Microsoft, Red Hat, Citrix, etc.) gives the hypervisor away and charges for the management infrastructure. There is a distinct difference between a hypervisor and the infrastructure platform used to manage the hypervisor(s). This difference could be lost if you equate ESX with vSphere.

I don't understand the point you were trying to make with the link you included. The link is for a free download of the VMware ESXi hypervisor, which was recently renamed to VMware vSphere Hypervisor. The new name isn't perfect, but it better describes the product being delivered. You get a standalone ESXi hypervisor and the vSphere desktop client to manage it. The reference to ESXi in the old name was huge point of confusion. Your really getting a single node vSphere infrastructure.

Here is an expert from the FAQ on the link you sent.
What is the difference between VMware ESXi and VMware vSphere Hypervisor?
VMware vSphere Hypervisor is the new name for what was formerly known as VMware ESXi Single Server or free ESXi (often abbreviated to simply “VMware ESXi”)...

-- Shawn

P
ptc-944201-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 15, 2011
Vivek,

To your original post. It works great when setup correctly. Let me know if you are interested in details.

Regards,

Mark Harwood
President
38 Technology Way
Millyard Technology Park
Nashua, NH 03060
Phone: (603) 595-1422 x228
Fax: (888) 545-9375
Toll Free: 1-888-VIS-EDGE
mharwood@visible-edge.com
P
patrick.chin11-Visitor
1-Visitor
January 18, 2011

I wish I could test against with the same hardware and Linux OS. But too bad, MS SQL only runs on Windows. Most cases OS hasa major factor in benchmarks.

For some tangents inbenchmarks:

One with SQL Server 5 and MySQL:

http://www.postgresonline.com/journal/archives/51-Cross-Compare-of-SQL-Server,-MySQL,-and-PostgreSQL.html

PostgreSQL versus MS SQL Server and PostgreSQL versus Oracle at the following sites:

http://www.redhat.com/pdf/rhel/bmsql-postgres-sqlsrvr-v1.0-1.pdf



http://diznix.com/dizwell/archives/category/postgres

VM and OS clustering is always best in Linux.

P
patrick.chin11-Visitor
1-Visitor
December 14, 2011

I believe both Windchill Production and ProE on VMware is possible only if you can allocate both cores and memory from the same CPU socket with it's corresponding DDR3 connecting channelsfor RAM.Mixingcores and memory accross physical sockets, boards, and servers is not an ideal performance condition. A lot of people would disagree, we've been working with RedHat and will commence testing Windows 2008 R2 Server 64bit with Hyper-V so you can VMs of 64 bit. RedHat you can force the VM to use cores with its respective DDR3 connecting RAM without going accross sockets, boards and servers ensuring the best performance.


Multple cores per socket is proving out to be the best performance than just dual cores sockets.

P
ptc-28783571-Visitor
1-Visitor
December 15, 2011
Hello,

Very Interesting topic, Last month I also was investigating on moving our
Windchill installation from Physical boxes to the Virtual, but seeing the
responses we decided to hold off and do more investigation and Performance
bench marking …

I, by this post, am not trying to discourage going to VM’s but have a look
at the discussion that went.

Link to the Post:-
Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement