Joel Garry wrote:
>
> Daniel Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3ECCE004.63BF03B5_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> > Hans Forbrich wrote:
> >
> > > Niall Litchfield wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'd love to be proven wrong but since the licensing agreement for Std
> > > > Edition shows that you cannot install it on a machine that is "capable" of
> > > > housing more than 4 processors (even if you only actually have 2) I'd
> > > > suspect a wild attempt to say "well you could allocate 32 processors to
> > > > oracle at any point - stump up the cash buster"
> > > >
> > > > :(
> > >
> > > Yup. You are right about the 'capable of ...' and about the 'could allocate
> > > ...' taking you out of Standard Edition range - that is the core of Oracle's
> > > 'Partitioning' document on http://www.oracle.com under the Licensing & Pricing
> > > section. (And we all thought it was the Partitioning option <g>)
> > >
> > > I've noticed Oracle tends to leave licensing in place as long as possible, and
> > > only changes when the customer base restarts their moan about how expensive
> > > the product is (or is perceived to be based on competitor's FUD). So unless
> > > they do this with 10i, we probably have 'till June 1, 2005 to discuss this.
> > >
> > > This whole N1 & equivalent push will allow Oracle to really showcase RAC on
> > > small (1-4 CPU) Dell/Linux machines. And I can see some environments with RAC
> > > where you could swing a licensed RAC machine from one Oracle cluster to
> > > another for extra CPU during end-of-month processing - I did the architecture
> > > once, customer failed before implementation.
> > >
> > > However, Oracle already has part of the license stuff in place with the 2 & 4
> > > year licenses but they need to provide finer granularity (one day?). With
> > > their Outsourcing offering, they already have the monthly billing in place.
> > > The only real challenges I see are: getting the periodic reports on useage,
> > > which might be available directly from the h/w vendor reports; keep the final
> > > per-unit charge reasonable.
> > >
> > > 'By the CPU tick'? Just think - we can return to yet another variant on Power
> > > Units! How about T-BUPU Time-Based Univeral Power Unit <g>
> > >
> > > Daniel's questions:
> > > "install on a 1 CPU machine and then ..."
> > > - would require dynamically changing the parallelization capabilities to take
> > > advantage of the new CPUs, wouldn't it?
> > >
> > > "install on a 10 CPU machine but make 6 ..."
> > > - is the hub of the entire discussions about "server consolidation by
> > > function", "one server for Oracle, separate server for app", and "dedicate the
> > > server so you can tune the machine". We already run into that all the time,
> > > and IMHO this is a big part of what makes Oracle appear much more expensive
> > > than it really is.
> > >
> > > Oracle did consider creating a billing engine for their apps. Maybe now they
> > > will become serious, or maybe acquire someone like Portal who specializes in
> > > telco & isp billing solutions. New vision - bills from Oracle just like your
> > > cell phone bill!
> >
> > Quite frankly that is what I expect. And that's not saying it is a bad thing. But
> > it is defnitely a thing.
>
> Methinks the technology will allow this, but the management/marketing
> oversimplifications, horsetrading, and general avariciousness of the
> companies involved will _make_ it a bad thing.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3046791.stm
Brings back the good old mainframe methods, where we were charged in
MIPS
--
=========================
Connor McDonald
http://www.oracledba.co.uk
"Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue"
Received on Thu May 22 2003 - 19:12:57 CDT
