comparing SharePoint 2010 with Oracle UCM 11g

• Repository Scalability: Comparing Microsoft SharePoint 2010 and Oracle UCM 11g Raoul Miller and Brent Seaman, TEAM Informatics, inc.
• Outline• Our ingestion rate experiments • Hardware and Software setup • Experimental design• Observations and Conclusions from these tests• Implications for Repository Sizing and Organization in SharePoint and UCM• Lessons Learned and Recommendations• Q and A
• Overall aims of this research• Apply real-world scenarios to ingestion testing • Rather than ultra high performance / ultra high cost• Determine actual ingestion rates for different scenarios on identical hardware• Expose weaknesses / issues in large imports• Derive recommendations for best practices in importing existing content into new CMS repositories
• Experimental Approach• Import existing files from file system into newly-installed CMS – Standard configurations – Commodity hardware – No specialized tuning or optimizations – Vendor recommended OS and databases• Four scenarios – 20,000 files @ 40kB – 20,000 files @ 100kB – 1,000,000 files @ 40kB – 1,000,000 files @ 100kB
• Are these Scenarios Realistic?• >80% of single instance CMS repositories contain 50-200,000+ items• Average “document” size in most industries is ~100kB.• Most projects need to import existing content from file shares or other systems
• Commodity Hardware• Dell PowerEdge R710s server• Dual Intel Xeon 5560 CPUs (@ quad core) running at 2.8Ghz• 16GB RAM• Eight 146GB 10K RPM SAS drives
• UCM Installation• Operating System: RedHat Enterprise 5 (specifically theCentOS5 build)• Database: Oracle 11g Standard Edition database• Web / Application Server: Weblogic 11gR1 (10.3.3)• Content ManagementUCM 11gR1 (11.1.1.4.0)System:• Java Runtime Environment:Sun Hotspot SDK (1.6.0_11) & JRockit R28• File storage: File system (default) and JDBC (SecureFiles)
• SharePoint Installation• Operating System: Windows Server 2008 Std Edition for Partners• Database: Microsoft SQL Server 2008 R2 Enterprise• Web Server: IIS7 (Standard with Windows Server 2008 - specifically v 7.5.76)• Content ManagementSharePoint Server 2010 Enterprise for System: Partners• File storage: Database Storage in SQL server
• Ingestion Approaches• UCM – used BatchBuilder and BatchLoader• SharePoint - – had to use third party tool (UploadZen by Roxority) – Need to organize content before import – Limited flexibility in directory size
• Supported SharePoint 2010 bulk import strategies• Multiple file upload applet – Silverlight; supports up to 100 docs, does not support subdirectories• Windows Explorer view – Extension of webDAV – Limited performance• SharePoint Workspace – Client integration – Only supports up to 500 documents
• Differences between Import Strategies• BatchLoader – Supported system tool – Allows automated file system crawl (BatchBuilder) – Storage / browse location in repository unrelated to source location – Supports high volume• UploadZen – Third-party application – Requires organization and sizing of import directories – Organization within repository reflects import location – Major challenges with high volume imports
• Considerations for Repository Sizing1. Should be primarily driven by business / infosec needs2. Practicality – Import / migrate – Search / organize – Backup / DR3. Flexibility – Growth in content volume / size – Leverage HSM / partitioning – Provide options for storage strategies
• Ingestion Rate Testing• Major things to test: – Overall rate of ingestion with different sized files and different sized collections – Ease of use of import tools – Flexibility in organization of content during / after import
• 20,000 files – each 40kB• First set of tests• Single directory for SharePoint source• UCM – File System storage – 198,000 docs/hr• UCM – JDBC storage – 156,000 docs/hr• SharePoint – 153,000 docs/hr
• 20,000 files – each 100kB• UCM – File System storage – 171,000 docs/hr• SharePoint – 138,000 docs/hr• Ingestion rates fell 10-15% for larger file size• SharePoint RAM usage higher, primarily in database
• 1,000,000 files – each 40kB• Need to organize files in directories for SharePoint – 50 folders each with 20,000 items - failed – 2,000 folders each with 500 items – succeeded• UCM – FS storage & Sun JRE 205,000 docs/hr• UCM – FS storage & JRockit JRE 212,000 docs/hr• UCM – JDBC storage & Sun JRE 171,000 docs/hr• SharePoint w/ 50 import folders failed• SharePoint w/ 2,000 import folders 217,000 docs/hr
• 1,000,000 files – each 40kB (contd.)• Substantial work to organize content for SharePoint import• SharePoint much more RAM intensive – Primarily with database process• UCM more CPU intensive – Much more linear response
• 1,000,000 files – each 100kB• UCM – FS storage & Sun JRE 179,000 docs/hr – 15% decrease in rate due to file size• Unable to complete test with SharePoint
• Conclusions• SharePoint requires 3rd party tools and substantial work before import• SharePoint has limited flexibility in terms of repository sizing, content organization, and import strategies• With optimized import, SharePoint ingestion rates are comparable to UCM• UCM has much more flexibility in import strategies• UCM has consistent import rates between 156,000 and 212,000 docs/hr (OOTB)
• Conclusions (contd.)• Ingestion rates are dependant on average file size (10- 15% decrease in rate between 40kB and 100kB file size)• UCM can be deployed on commodity hardware for repositories of 1,000,000 items• SharePoint has challenges importing 1,000,000 files on commodity hardware• Both systems function well on this hardware after import.• SharePoint import is much more RAM intensive whereas UCM import is CPU intensive

What are the better features of SharePoint than Oracle's UCM?

After being done so much research on the "Comparison on Microsoft SharePoint Vs Oracle's Content Management":
Both the Applications are highly recommended for content management systems, it depends on their internal infrastructure if the infrastructure i.e other software(s) are on Microsoft then its better to go with SharePoint. Or If the company has other the software on Java and Oracle based then it is good to go with Oracle Content Management.

And also it is highly probable that long term product growth and enhancement will be more active in the SharePoint product line vs. Oracle CMS.  Likely both products will advance in capabilities over time, but SharePoint seems to have the momentum.  In addition, add on enhancement product selection looks to provide a wealth of focused vertical market solutions in the SharePoint environment.  SharePoint looks to be more persistent in the marketplace than Oracle CMS.

Last but not least: Oracle ECM is too expensive when compare with SharePoint.

More over most of the Federal Government Agencies are recommending SharePoint for their business processes since SharePoint makes e-Governance easier. Since Microsoft Office SharePoint Server is an integrated suite of server capabilities that can help improve organizational effectiveness by providing comprehensive content management and enterprise search, accelerating shared business processes, and facilitating information-sharing across boundaries for better business insight. Office SharePoint Server supports all intranet, extranet, and Web applications across an enterprise within one integrated platform, instead of relying on separate fragmented systems.

As per my requirement my company has using the Microsoft Office 2010, MS CRM 2011, BizTalk 2010 and ASP.NET applications so I would highly suggest the Microsoft SharePoint 2010.

Hope this will help you.