[Theforum] evolt.org revamp comment period open

Martin Burns martin at easyweb.co.uk
Sat Feb 1 15:58:50 CST 2003


On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, .jeff wrote:

> garrett,
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > From: Garrett Coakley
> >
> > > TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE:
> > > * To move the backend db to another technology (either
> > >   an OSS solution such as Postgres or MSSQL). MSSQL
> > >   will likely require a Windows-based provider who
> > >   will also supply necessary license for operating
> > >   system and DB. To maintain the current CMS will also
> > >   require finding a CF license supplier.
> >
> > If we want to reduce costs, is looking at a platform
> > where licensing fees are involved (ie: Windows2000/MSSQL)
> > a good idea?  Would we be looking at the provider to give
> > those licences gratis? What would happen in the event of
> > us growing and needing another machine? Could we
> > guarantee that we would be given another license? What
> > are the current Microsoft licensing costs?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> imo, this is completely a non-issue.  there's nothing that says that, once
> updated to work with mssql, weo couldn't be put with any of the quality
> shared hosts on the planet.  a number of them have connectivity unlike
> anything we've ever had and facilities that make the operations we're used
> to look like dank, basement hosting.  they all are running cf5.0 or cfmx and
> mssql.  they foot the cost of hardware -- depreciation, upgrades, failures,
> maintenance, etc. -- and software -- upgrades, patches, license, etc.

Jeff

Unless they're run by philanthopists, their customers foot these costs as
part of their hosting bill.

However, if win-based hosts are on a cost par with (say) rackshack, then
they're financially viable. I *am* wondering how this will play with our
mailman setup, and whether it matters if they were on entirely different
setups (or even hosts).

Can you send some indicative costs to finance for the equivalent of what
we're using now?

If the cost basis significantly changes for any host, then it may cease to
be viable.

> they also employ full-time support staff that are only a phone call
> away.

Which is the basic argument for managed hosting (rather than co-lo), and
I'm 100% behind that.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > * To make such changes as are necessary to the CMS
> > >   layer to cope with that change. This will be a major
> > >   undertaking as it has a large amount of
> > >   Oracle-specific code.
> >
> > Well that's jeffs area. Jeff? I didn't see anything in
> > the steering thread about this. Is there any abstraction
> > between the logic and data storage? I'm guessing the
> > work to move from Oracle to any db (PgSQL, MSSQL etc)
> > is going to be pretty much the same?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> there is currently no abstraction layer.  at the time the cms was written
> there wasn't any foreseeable need to ever move away from oracle as the
> database server.  furthermore, at the time the few of us that were actually
> coding the current version of the cms felt we were under a time-crunch to
> get it done and delivered.

Yep, and that was the right decision for that situation.

Cheers
Martin
--
"Names, once they are in common use, quickly
 become mere sounds, their etymology being
 buried, like so many of the earth's marvels,
 beneath the dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie




More information about the theforum mailing list