Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 10g License Issue - Development Vs Production License - Enterprise Edition

Re: 10g License Issue - Development Vs Production License - Enterprise Edition

From: hpuxrac <>
Date: 15 Mar 2006 09:57:09 -0800
Message-ID: <>

Greg wrote:
> > Is often cheaper to get 'personal edition' for each developer. It is
> > compatible with Enterprise Edition - including all options except RAC -
> > and is actually very inexpensive. I've paid a whack more for individual
> > 'enterprise developer' licenses from Borland, Microsoft, and others.
> You might be able to get away with using a person edition for personal
> development, but I'd hate to have to ask my developers to develop an
> enterprise application that is not setup as the production system is.
> (not saying it needs to have the same amount of cpu's, memory, etc),
> but it should be setup in the same fashion for CORRECT development (but
> that is totally a personal preference).
> Licensing on standard edition strictly states that if the machine can
> hold more than 4 physical CPU's, it must have an enterprise edition
> license. You might want to call Oracle to verfiy this, but I know 100%
> sure that this is the case for their standard edition vs. enterprise
> edition. I think you are debating fine grain details. Of course, if
> you have 1, 2, 3, 4, or 32 CPU's in the machine, all CPU's must be
> licensed (either as a per processor or named user)...that is a given,
> but what is not understood is if you have a machine that can physically
> hold say 8 CPU's and you only have 4 CPU's in the machine, you must
> license all 4 CPU's, but using ENTERPRISE edition because the machine
> can physically hold more that 4 CPU's.

Ummm the OP asked a question, received some good information, and thanked several people for helping them.

You two now are apparently trading posts back and forth so maybe if you want to continue you could perhaps start a new thread? Received on Wed Mar 15 2006 - 11:57:09 CST

Original text of this message