Re: T3 processor/system & Oracle License

  • From: LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:40:01 +0200

By the way I think the sales guy was trying to fool my P770 customer because
they were gonna hard partitioning the server in which case your statements
apply, pay only for those CPU which will be used.

In Windows however I dont see any chance to hard partition the server

--
LSC


On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:34 PM, LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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: