Re: T3 processor/system & Oracle License
- From: LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:34:03 +0200
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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Other related posts:
