RE: T3 processor/system & Oracle License

  • From: "Kenneth Naim" <kennethnaim@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <exriscer@xxxxxxxxx>, <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:46:35 -0400

While I don't agree with oracle's licensing model, couldn't this customer go
to a server with the same number of cores if he doesn't need the additional
processing power? Instead of going with additional cpu's faster cpu's will
not add licensing costs.

 

 

 

From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of LS Cheng
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:36 AM
To: tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; zhuchao@xxxxxxxxx; ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: T3 processor/system & Oracle License

 

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



On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Tim Hall <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi.

Why should you expect to be able to do more processing for the same money?
If you remember back in the day Oracle used to charge less per socket for
Intel than other CPUs (Sparc, Alpha, RISC) because the performance of Intel
in comparison was so crappy. Once intel played catch-up that discount was
removed.

Fast forward and Oracle [started | were forced to start] charging different
prices for sockets compared to cores because they recognized a core was not
equivalent to a socket in terms of performance.

Fast foward again to the future and if you tell me that in a 64-core socket,
each core is not as productive as a core on a 4-core socket, then I will
expect a reduced cost per core on the 64-core chip compared to the 4-core
chip, but if they are equally productive, I would expect to pay the same
per-core price.

It strikes me you have a choice:

a) You buy a big new server and you choose to use all the cores so you
should pay for the extra licenses.
b) You buy a big new server and use virtualization to create a VM that is
pinned to X number of cores. Your licensing costs have not changed and you
have lots of extra cores free to do something else with.

Multi-core does not have to affect your licensing. There will be many
companies who don't need the umph who will use bigger servers to
consolidate. Those that do need the extra horsepower do so because their
requirements are growing, so they should expect to pay more money.

I would not buy a Ferrari and expect to spend the same on petrol as I do for
my Renault Clio. :)

If you are listening Larry, please send me lots of cash for my justification
of your crappy pricing model.

Cheers

Tim...





On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Jeremy Schneider
<jeremy.schneider@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I was just talking about this at OpenWorld.  I'm getting increasingly
frustrated with Oracle (and other folks are getting frustrated too).
Oracle needs to fix their broken licensing model.

For the past few decades, Moore's law has been applied to processors by
making smaller more efficient circuits and thus faster chips.  In that
ecosystem, Oracle could charge by socket or by core because there was
room for processing growth without automatically doubling license costs.

Today the chips can't get any smaller.  Moore's law is applied to
processors by increasing parallelism.  Intel says "this new chip now has
64 cores!!" ...and I say "NOOOOOOOO! My license costs!!!!!"

We need to maintain the growth of processing capacity we've had for the
past few decades, but nobody can afford to start doubling our database
license costs every year.  This business of "fractional pricing for
cores" isn't going to fix anything in the long run.  Oracle REALLY needs
to do something about it, and I'm getting a bit tired of waiting...
these costs are getting a little crazy for the average business.

-Jeremy


Zhu,Chao wrote:
> with recent release of the T3 processor/system:
>
> so does anyone know how oracle is going to license the new T3
> processor for its oracle database server? in T2 it was 0.75/core, so
> each socket uses 6 oracle license;
>
> With T3 not adding more threads to each core, and each socket with 16
> cores, each socket is going to use 12 oracle license then?
>
> Also in the very early days the tech specification from external (even
> wiki) was each core of the T3 processor is going to be 16 threads
> (instead of the current 8 threads, which is same as T2);  Was oracle
> afraid of charging each core 1.5 license:)?
>
>
> --
> Regards
> Zhu Chao
>
>


--
http://www.ardentperf.com
+1 312-725-9249

Jeremy Schneider
Chicago

--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l



 

 

Other related posts: