6 ms·

this is why core based licensing frustrates me. When I license Oracle (11g) the real way to get speed increases is to let it spread out over multiple cores, bu

by abruzzi 12y ago

this is why core based licensing frustrates me. When I license Oracle (11g) the real way to get speed increases is to let it spread out over multiple cores, but that gets expensive given Oracles licensing terms, and even finding single or dual core systems is get hard.

tiffanyh 12y ago
Oracle isn't alone in core based pricing. Microsoft licenses by core as well http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-move-license-core-sql-server-2012 http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-move-li...
rdtsc 12y ago
What would you use as a proxy to get extract as much revenue as possible? Server memory size? Max database size mabe. Or get silly and the amount of datatypes you can use. (For $10k more you can use floats in your columns) and so on. Core licensing is purely a price differentiator to get as much money as possible. The idea is that those willing to shell out money for 64 cores for their servers will be willing to shell out 20x or similar than those with 2 cores.
- wmf 12y ago
  What would you use as a proxy to get extract as much revenue as possible? That's the key. Complaints about core-based licensing aren't really about core-based licensing but about the very concept of value-based licensing (aka extract as much revenue as possible).
- rodgerd 12y ago
  I can buy 64 core servers for... well, without giving away discount margins, let's say well south of $30-40K (with a big slab of memory). The Oracle list price would be north of a couple of million dollars if I was buying "options" like partitioning. The software and hardware prices are totally out of whack. Especially considering the R&D that has to back up processors.
userbinator 12y ago
On the other hand, Intel's x86 cores are much faster per-core than its competitors, so core-based licensing could end up being cheaper for the same performance. This could also partly be why Oracle is pushing for many cores in their latest SPARC processors.
- wmf 12y ago
  Oracle (and some other vendors like IBM) uses a multiplier scheme where different kinds of cores are worth different amounts. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core-factor-table-070634.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core-...
- zurn 12y ago
  IBM is pretty safely ahead of Intel in per-core speed. (Eg the Power S824 cint/fp rate results at http://spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2014q3/ http://spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2014q3/)
  - sounds 12y ago
    Are you sure? Yes, Power8 has impressive single threaded benchmarks. But Intel has long dominated the single threaded performance market due to their fab edge and their economies of scale (lets them put more into R&D than IBM). Just wondering if you have more benchmarks than what looks like Spec benchmarks? I'm definitely interested if another manufacturer can beat Intel at single-threaded performance.

by abruzzi 12y ago

tiffanyh 12y ago

Oracle isn't alone in core based pricing. Microsoft licenses by core as well http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-move-license-core-sql-server-2012 http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-move-li...

rdtsc 12y ago

What would you use as a proxy to get extract as much revenue as possible? Server memory size? Max database size mabe. Or get silly and the amount of datatypes you can use. (For $10k more you can use floats in your columns) and so on. Core licensing is purely a price differentiator to get as much money as possible. The idea is that those willing to shell out money for 64 cores for their servers will be willing to shell out 20x or similar than those with 2 cores.

wmf 12y ago
What would you use as a proxy to get extract as much revenue as possible? That's the key. Complaints about core-based licensing aren't really about core-based licensing but about the very concept of value-based licensing (aka extract as much revenue as possible).
rodgerd 12y ago
I can buy 64 core servers for... well, without giving away discount margins, let's say well south of $30-40K (with a big slab of memory). The Oracle list price would be north of a couple of million dollars if I was buying "options" like partitioning. The software and hardware prices are totally out of whack. Especially considering the R&D that has to back up processors.

userbinator 12y ago

On the other hand, Intel's x86 cores are much faster per-core than its competitors, so core-based licensing could end up being cheaper for the same performance. This could also partly be why Oracle is pushing for many cores in their latest SPARC processors.

wmf 12y ago
Oracle (and some other vendors like IBM) uses a multiplier scheme where different kinds of cores are worth different amounts. http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core-factor-table-070634.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/contracts/processor-core-...
zurn 12y ago
IBM is pretty safely ahead of Intel in per-core speed. (Eg the Power S824 cint/fp rate results at http://spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2014q3/ http://spec.org/cpu2006/results/res2014q3/)
- sounds 12y ago
  Are you sure? Yes, Power8 has impressive single threaded benchmarks. But Intel has long dominated the single threaded performance market due to their fab edge and their economies of scale (lets them put more into R&D than IBM). Just wondering if you have more benchmarks than what looks like Spec benchmarks? I'm definitely interested if another manufacturer can beat Intel at single-threaded performance.