Multi-Core Chips And Software Licensing

i_r_sensitive writes "NetworkWorldFusion has an article on the interaction between multi-core processors and software licensed and charged on a per-processor basis. Interesting to see how/if Oracle and others using this pricing model react. Can multi-core processors put the final nail in per-processor licensing?"

Comments

Per Processor -- Per Core

[Iesus_Christus]

If the efforts of other corporations bent on protecting their intellectual property (RIAA) are any indication, per-processor licensing will move to per-core licensing. If the RIAA can force you to pay multiple times for the same song (which you, unfortunately, cannot move between preferred mediums), then it would make sense that software companies bent on collecting money would make you pay multiple times for one processor. On the other hand, they are somewhat different issues: usage of music would be governed under fair use (in theory), while usage of software (at in terms of licensing per processor) would be governed by the EULA or another contract between the corporation and customer.

Oracle 9i RAC doesn't charge for HT

[photon317]

I don't if it's any indication of what they'll do for dual-core, but on Hyperthreading Xeon's, Oracle charged us RAC licensing fees per physical processor, even though most OS tools show twice as many virtual processors.

Re:Oracle 9i RAC doesn't charge for HT

[Dark Lord Seth]

That's because HyperThreading is a neat and very low level trick that makes it appear like there are two processors. A dual-core processor doesn't use any tricks and physically contains two processing cores on one chip. Of course, this could lead to some very interesting things such as an dual core AMD proc using one shared on-chip memory controller or Intel procs with dual-cores AND hyperthreading for a total of 4 procs.

I'm looking forward to dual-cores.

Microsoft still does it by the physical processor

[millisa]

A recent example would be the Hyperthreaded CPUs. SQL Server can be licensed per CPU and with Hyperthreading, the software does for all intents and purposes treat it as a second CPU. However, Microsoft's stance is surprisingly that you only license per the physical processor. Page has doc with more info on MS specifics

no

[dark404]

Most likely per-"Physical Processor" will be changed to per-"Physical Processor Die" since the multi-cores still share a die.

Re:I doubt it

[jarich]

"Can multi-core processors put the final nail in per processor licensing?"

no, but i bet linux can.

Oracle runs on Linux.

Oracle charges per CPU.

Your point was?

Toast.

[scowling]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to the day where you have to pay a license fee for each element in your toaster. Who needs to toast more than one slice of bread at a time, right?

Re:I doubt it

[globalar]

Oracle charges for cores individually. (see the Processor section)

Perhaps a compromise will result. Eventually a 2CPU license could entirely replace a single CPU license. At such a stage licenses could be bundled as 2CPU, 4CPU, etc. As multicores become the norm, naturally 1CPU licenses should phase out entirely.

This would allow companies to keep their per core licensing scheme. Customers would get the feeling of a deal by getting a muticore license. Perhaps the market would lower the cost of 2CPU license to what a single CPU would be worth.

HT is another matter - architecturally and performance-wise.

Re:this is all BS.

[jsprat]

It is BS. But Oracle used to charge per "processing unit". It took into account the speed of the chip you planned to run it on as well as the number of processers in the system and the number of expected connections. Or you could purchase the "Web server" edition, which would have broken our company.

Today, Oracle's price list is 11 pages of different price plans that would confuse a car dealership!

wake up fools

[GISGEOLOGYGEEK]

Why are any of you surprised?

Oh ya, its because you can only think with the open source half of your brain.

Of course software companies will try to charge you more money any chance they can!

Just like every other product you can buy anywhere, if they can sell it for more, they will.

Wake up!

Until you complain enough, they will reap what they can from this conundrum.

If you don't like how Oracle screws you on your new dual core processor, then send them packing, I'd bet that Postgresql / PostGIS is now sufficient for the needs of most enterprise database users .. AND ITS FREEEEEE.

In fact, I personally am going to skip the chance at ever having the topic at hand affect me .....

Today I called, found out that, ESRI in canada charges $13,500 for a 1cpu license of ArcSDE or $19,000 for a 2cpu license, it remains to be seen what they define as a CPU.

But instead of blowing that $19,000, I am installing PostGIS to serve my spatial datasets. Screw them! ... they really didnt like it when I pointed out that I'll be saving $52,000 by using MapServer + Postgresql + PostGIS over their ArcIMS + ArcSDE/Oracle setup.

And the joke is on them as my system is faster, easier to setup / deploy, and can handle much bigger raster datasets in a fraction the time.