Re: oracle costs

Hyperthreading doesn't count toward licensing.

I got 112 cores from 2 servers with 2 CPUs, each with 28 cores.  2 x 2 x 28 = 112.

I didn't add in the Oracle "core factor" of 0.5 for Intel as Jack had, so the licensable number of cores is indeed 56 vs 96.

On 9/30/19 6:59 PM, Chris Taylor wrote:
> Tim,
>
> Is this part accurate?
>
> A new Dell R740 server running dual Xeon V2 82xx CPUs with 28 cores
> apiece would kick the butt off any two of those old servers, if not
> all four of them.  Two such servers, each with 56 cores, is only 112
> cores to license
>
> 2x28 = 56 but it's only 112 with hyperthreading, right?  And
> hyperthreading isn't licenseable IIRC?
>
> Chris
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 8:43 PM Tim Gorman <tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:tim.evdbt_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Jack,
>
> When running any software licensed by CPU, smaller numbers of
> faster CPUs are less expensive than larger numbers of slow CPUs.
>
> What you described in your email seem to be six-year-old Dell
> database servers, probably E5-2697 Xeon processors with 12 cores? 
> Unless I misunderstood, you mentioned four (4) servers, each with
> 4 sockets, each socket with 12 cores.  To me, that is 4 x 4 x 12
> which totals to 192, not 96, cores to license.
>
> A new Dell R740 server running dual Xeon V2 82xx CPUs with 28
> cores apiece would kick the butt off any two of those old servers,
> if not all four of them.  Two such servers, each with 56 cores, is
> only 112 cores to license.
>
> Updating the hardware will drop your core count from 192 to 112
> while improving performance dramatically.
>
> Oracle EE licenses with a 75% discount (i.e. list $47,500/core to
> discounted $11,875/core) is a licensing drop from $2.28m to
> $1.33m.  If your discount is less than 75%, then savings are even
> bigger.  If your shop has only 15 people, I'm betting even money
> that your discount isn't 75%.
>
> Figuring that a decently loaded R740 can be bought for about
> $60,000 or less, the $120k hardware purchase pays for itself with
> $950k licensing savings.  That'll pay for some VMware/OVM licenses
> too, with enough left over for salaries for a couple developers or
> DBAs.
>
> The only way a hardware upgrade wouldn't pay for itself is if
> there is a 97.5% discount (i.e. $1187.50/core is $228k for 192
> cores and $113k for 112 cores, difference of only $115k).  And
> with a 97.5% discount with Oracle, your time is better spent on
> other concerns.  :)
>
> Please re-purpose those old servers for software not licensed by
> CPU, and keep the Oracle licenses on new fast hardware.
>
> This is a golden opportunity to ditch those old boat-anchor
> servers, and to ditch the boat-anchor concept of "physical
> servers" as well, and build a nice VM farm for databases.
>
> Just my US$0.02...
>
> -Tim
>
>
>
> On 9/30/19 4:18 PM, jh3dt68_at_yahoo.com <mailto:jh3dt68_at_yahoo.com>
> (Redacted sender jh3dt68 for DMARC) wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Where I work we have Oracle EE running on 4 physical Dell
>> servers, all running Oracle 12.2 and RHEL 7. The environments are
>> PROD, DR, TEST and DEV. At present all of the servers have 4
>> sockets with 12 cores per socket, for a total of 96 CPU cores of
>> Oracle EE . Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, management is
>> asking us to reduce our annual Oracle maintenance costs, either
>> that or we have to lay off a couple of developers, there are 15
>> people total in our shop. Our first thought was to combine DEV
>> and TEST as both of those environments are not fully utilized.
>> That would reduce our core count by 1/4. But digging into the
>> contracts and the world of Oracle licensing (ugh), it looks like
>> Oracle could re-calculate the maintenance costs based on the
>> current list price of annual support, not on the discount price
>> we received when buying Oracle 4 years ago. That means we
>> wouldn't pay more but maintenance costs might not be any less.
>> The other idea we had, was to convert the CPU licenses to Named
>> User Plus licenses for DEV/TEST. There are only 15 people who
>> ever use the DEV/TEST environments and we would leave PROD/DR
>> alone for now. I understand there are processor minimums which
>> must be accounted for, but if we combine the DEV/TEST and
>> switched to NUPs I'm hoping it would result in some cost
>> reduction, even if Oracle tries to claw back some of the savings.
>>
>> Any insights or suggestions are greatly appreciated,
>>
>> - Jack H.
>

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