Re: 12c pluggable database shared SGA question
- From: Freek D'Hooge <freek.dhooge@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: fuzzy.graybeard@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:11:06 +0200
Hans,
But with the current price setting, the reduction in cpu resources would
need to be more then 33% (list price EE $47.500 and multitenant
$17.500) ....
Which seems very high to me...
As a standard edition license cost for a cpu socket the same amount as
for 1 PDB option (which licenses 2 intel cores), I think it would often
make more sense to put less important databases on separate standard
edition licensed servers instead of using PDB's.
If I look at my customers, I don't see any benefit for them (at least
not with the current price tag).
Hence my question if there are people out there who have a real business
case that justify the multitenant cost.
Kind regards,
Freek
On do, 2014-09-11 at 10:58 -0600, Hans Forbrich wrote:
> I don't think the win is necessarily in the memory.
>
> However, with 10 instances on the machine, each with it's own DB
> Console, it's own LGWR, DBWR, SMON, PMON, ..., I suspect that
> reclaiming those CPU cycles and therefore being able to put the same
> load on a smaller machine, or consolidate more instances on the same
> machine, hopefully we will be able to reduce the overall CPU licenses
> (to be replaced by multi-tenant licenses).
>
> Basically, in my mind it amounts to the difference between getting 24
> cores for individual instances, or 16 cores for multi-tenant instances.
> If I've just managed to save 1/3 of the CPUs and therefore reduced the
> licenses, and the energy footprint, by 1/3, I may have won. I say "may"
> because of the possible mixed-load and admin considerations that are
> discussed in other areas of this (and other) thread. As always YMMV, so
> Benchmark.
>
> This, by the way, is the exact same reasoning for using Cloud Control
> instead of a DB Control for each instance. Cloud Control is moved to a
> different machine and monitors many instances, and you therefore recoup
> the CPU cycles used to run the console from the DB box, where you pay by
> the CPU core. Setting aside Cloud Control HA configuration, which is an
> extra cost, the Cloud COntrol base configuration is included in your DB
> license. Back a number of year and versions, the DB Control's App
> Server used *significant* CPU and memory and in fact became one of the
> undetected performance bottlenecks on some server configurations because
> it's own overhead was outside the scope of what was measured.
>
> And yes, the numbers are different when considering SE.
>
> /Hans
>
> On 11/09/2014 10:23 AM, Freek D'Hooge wrote:
> >
> > This has me wondering since the moment I saw the cost for this option.
> > Has anyone a real business case in which the reduction in in memory
> > footprint and such has lowered the cost in such amount that it
> > outweighs the additional cost of the option?
> > Aside from sharing resources, what are the things that would make
> > managing PDB's so much more efficient that it justifies the price
> > Oracle charges you?
>
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
Other related posts:
