Re: T3 processor/system & Oracle License

  • From: Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: LS Cheng <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 18:26:58 +0100

Hi.

Sorry for replying again, but here is an official statement:

http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/partitioning.pdf

Notice Oracle VM is included in the Hard Partitioning section (provided it
is used correctly) and is therefore part of the pay for what you use
options.

Cheers

Tim...

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Oracle VM supports hard partitioning on x84 hardware, as explained here:
>
> http://wiki.oracle.com/page/Hard+partitioning
>
> As mentioned previously, since Windows is installed inside the VM and the
> VM is limited to use specific CPUs, the licensing of Oracle is based on the
> CPUs the VM can see, not all the CPUs on the server.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim...
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> You have been misinformed or misunderstood the Oracle virtualization
>> licensing issue.
>>
>> Oracle do not charge licenses for the whole server, even on x86, provided
>> you can garauntee the the VMs are limited to specific cores. On x86 this can
>> be done using Oracle VM. Not sure about VMware. There is a MOS note about
>> pinning VMs to specific cores. Provided you have done this licensing is not
>> an issue.
>>
>> Windows virtualization? Another non-issue. When you are virtualizing
>> servers, you will presumably be using bare-metal hypervisors, like Oracle VM
>> or VMware ESX. They run on the hardware directly and you run VMs on top of
>> them. You can use Oracle VM or ESX to virtualize Windows, like any other x86
>> OS.
>>
>> Cost? Oracle VM is open source and you can use it for free, even in
>> production. Like OEL, if you want support you have to pay, but using OVM for
>> free doesn't negate your database and middleware support.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim...
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:34 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: