I was preparing to set up the basic framework of a commercial PLM system at a customer site recently and ended up finding a engineering vs IT debate in progress. Engineering wanted the most pre-built quick to deploy system the selected vendor could provide so readily signed a PO with the vendor for a solution that required the use of MS SQL 2005. When I arrived to do the readiness check, I found that IT was adamantly opposed to MS SQL and would prefer the route of implementing the next tier PLM system (requiring more configuration work) in order to remain with their database environment – Oracle. Thus the age old debate renewed itself. Personally I don’t have a preferance – there are business decisions that warrant the use of either system. It was getting past the hyperbole that I realized was really the issue as this topic does come up often.
So first what are the top tier PLM Vendor trends with supporting the two environments.
Agile – Supported Oracle and MS SQL when they first launched, withdrew support for MS SQL 5 years later, and recently renewed support, September 2006(see http://www.agile.com/pressreleases/index.asp?view=566
Dessault – Supports MS SQL as of November 2005 (see http://www.3ds-microsoft.com/news/2005%2011%2007.pdf)
PTC – Hot off the press – announcing MS SQL support as of Jan. 17, 2007 (see http://www.tenlinks.com/NEWS/PR/PTC/011707_microsoft.htm)
UGS – Has supported MS SQL since October 2004 (see http://www.ugs.com/about_us/press/press.shtml?id=3856)
Why is it that these companies are willing to invest in the architectual changes required to add the support for MS SQL. Obviously this was not a decision to be taken lightly. The NUMBER ONE reason is that the buyers of PLM systems today are in the “mid-market” and the majority of mid-market companies struggle with Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). While many may argue that Oracle is very cost effective, it tends to be the long term costs of skilled Oracle DBA’s that drive the TCO up.
Yet the bias I hear “against” the use of MS SQL – is often based in the historical distrust of Microsoft and concerns about security holes – so I found the linked report by David Lichtfield, fascinating in that it really addresses the question of the security holes “myth”
As I said – I don’t really care which database server I setup customers PLM systems on. The ones I’ve deployed that use both – don’t seem much different from the adminstration of the PLM applications in and of themselves. The vast majority of the time the configuration does not involve even interacting with the database at the database server level after the initial database creation. So if the install scripts work, and the customer wants one over the other – I’ll make sure I understand the reasons, advise them on any issues and move on.
Copyright 2007, LR Hirr, All Rights Reserved
my convition is using the same hardware,
a DataBase has more performance
on a Unix OS than on a Window OS.
So this can be a decision for Oracle …
Comment by basedow — February 7, 2007 @ 12:27 am |
Many mid-sized manufacturers just do not have the inhouse resources to support a mixed environment (unix and Windows) and the problem those companies have is that they hear alot of conflicting messages regarding whether or not MS SQL can meet the demands of serving PLM.
The conflicting information typically revolves around security myths and performance myths. The article I posted sited was an analysis of the security issues between the two systems and was specifically of interest because of the fact it was not generated by either vendor.
The only performance data I could find was either Microsoft or at Oracle sourced documents which of course means the data is published to suit their marketing rather than from an outside analysis.
My ultimate point was that PLM will operate well in either environment – and businesses typically have ALREADY defined their infrastructure so the PLM system should be implemented with the existing infrastructure rather than impose a different OS or different database just for the sake of the PLM system. Obviously the PLM vendors have come to realize that – which is why every key PLM vendor has published the fact that they will support both Oracle and MS SQL.
Comment by plmsavvy — February 7, 2007 @ 12:21 pm |
Hello,
There is an issue which has taken my mind. I have understood that for a company on the PLM road and freshly started its investigations and requirement specifications for PDM system, it is necessary to make sure that every other department which has process or data interface with the product development department (such as customer relationship dep. or service/support dep.) use compatible and integratable systems for their information/document managemenet system.
The question is, when deciding about system vendors, what are the key features to be considered to make sure of no miss-match between the selected PDM system and a document management systems used in another department? …. especially if the other departments are on instant need to buy a software for their own web-based document management needs, before the final decision for PDM system selection is made. Should they really wait until the whole PLM architecture is defined? or am I totally having a wrong approach toward this issue?
(Hope I have expressed myself clearly!)
I really would be glad to have your opinion abou it.
Best Regards,
~Hoda
Comment by Hoda — May 12, 2009 @ 2:58 am |