ops forgot to say He runs Windows so what Virtualization is supported with Oracle in this platform? I have another customer who bought a couple of Power 770, if they hadnt an ULA agreement the Oracle Sales guy was actully telling them that they have to license the entire server. Thanks -- LSC On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi. > > LS Cheng: As I keep saying, you don't have to use all the cores for Oracle. > It is not the law. You can use virtualization such that you only pay for the > cores you want to use. Your licensing costs do not have to change because of > increasing numbers of cores, whether you use per-core or named user pricing. > Use the number of cores you want to use. Pay for the cores you are using. > Simple. > > Rich Jesse: Agreed, processor power doesn't equate to improved performance > in a system that is not CPU bound, but we are moving into new ground with > the storage improvements coming along. When disks are as fast as memory, the > bottlenecks may be different, depending on the type of processing you are > doing. Insert caveats here. :) > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/01/morle_1/ > > Cheers > > Tim... > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:57 PM, LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Yes of course that is an option, in fact he is looking for the MOST >> powerful dual core existing in the market! >> >> But imagine in a couple of years time when you can only choose minimum 8 >> core servers? >> >> >> -- >> LSC >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Paul Drake <bdbafh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> LSC, >>> >>> So why not simply downgrade to a dual socketed, quad core server? >>> The new server will still have 3 memory controller channels per socket as >>> opposed to a single memory controller on the mainboard. >>> Perhaps I'm too used to where the lines of the electric fence are and >>> simply stay far enough away to not get zapped. >>> >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> <removed most of the thread so as to not get nailed for overquoting> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:36 AM, LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I have a customer who's got 200 users (NAMED USERS) licensed, to >>>> simplify he has a 4 dual core server so that becomes 8 cores, when dealing >>>> with named user license model you must pay 25 suer per core so even he has >>>> less users he has to pay for 200. >>>> >>>> He needs to upgrade the server now, 4 core intel 55xx CPU so the >>>> hardware vendor, Dell is trying to sell a server with 4 CPU again, but now >>>> he will have 16 cores after hardware upgrade. Oracle tells him that now he >>>> needs now 400 users licensed. >>>> >>>> So he says what the heck, the number of users is not gonna change just >>>> because the CPU has now more cores I am forced to buy more license? In this >>>> case he is not annoyed about the cores, the annoying point is Oracle forces >>>> him to buy 25 users per core even has has around 150 users. >>>> >>>> So more cores mean more money no matter if you license with CPU or named >>>> users. What if in a couple of years all CPU are 16 or even 32 cores, so he >>>> has to move from 200 users to 800? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> LSC >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >