Re: T3 processor/system & Oracle License

From: Rich Jesse <rjoralist2_at_society.servebeer.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 10:17:16 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <094f5acc25e9269ceb7bfe13924aff00.squirrel_at_society.servebeer.com>



Tim writes:

> Why should you expect to be able to do more processing for the same money?

"processing" in that context does not equal database performance. I'd say that 95% of the Oracle DBs I've worked with over the past 14 years or so have been constrained by IO and not the ability to generate that IO (via CPU). I don't want more cores for my database server. But IBM and others are forcing their customers into that model. To stay somewhat current with Oracle in order to just gain bugfixes, one must upgrade. However, newer versions of the DB software require newer OS versions. And in some cases, newer OS versions require newer hardware. Or the vendor continually increases annual maintenance costs on existing hardware in order to "force" server upgrades, which then reverses the interoperability chain back to the DB version.

It's like the Onion.com's 5-blade razor story (which is NSFW, BTW). Forget the customer -- let's see how many cores we can slap on a chip!

Makes a DBA want to use Postgres. I'm just sayin'...

Rich

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Fri Oct 01 2010 - 10:17:16 CDT

Original text of this message