Slashdot Mirror
Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?
sebFlyte writes "The multi-core debate continues. HP and Intel have laid into Oracle and (to a lesser extent) BEA over their their treatment of multi-core processers. Oracle's argument that 'a core is a CPU and therefore you should pay us all your money' isn't a popular one, it would seem. What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming to the fore so strongly?"
I'm not paying for any "processers"!
Oracle's stubborness says, time to start looking at DB2.
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said: "I drank what?" - Chris Knight (Val Kilmer)- Real Genius
So people will move to competition if the competition is more cost effective for them.
I thought that they just turned you upside down and saw how much money fell out of your pockets.
Dual core chips are sold in the "CPU" section of stores I'm going to consider them singular.
Central Processing Unit.
Theres no 's' on the end.
HP and Intel should manage their own business, and leave Oracle to mismanage theirs.
What have we come to that companies write open letters to themselves, using public opinion to try to damage competitors or enhance their own position... and the public eats it up and supports it?
Intel, this is your problem. Deal with it without whining to the public... or you'll look like whiners. It isn't like the wining is going to actually help your case anyway.
Microsoft of all people did the right thing.. why can't Oracle?
Let them be stupid...the market will correct them.
--Mike--
> What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the
> industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming
> to the fore so strongly?"
PostgreSQL is coming along nicely...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
i just hope that isp's dont start charging double if you have multiple computers connected to the same connection. just like the software, your not paying per processor, its buy machine.
This is sort of scam is used on pricing for mainframes all the time. One place where I worked used this as an excuse to (finally!) dump some crappy and archaic Computer Associates products when they started charging us double for a dual processor, even though one processor was partitioned to another OS that didn't run any of their products.
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
The company that I work for has never had that policy. We have products for AIX, Linux and Solaris; while we charge per processor, it's never been our policy to charge per core. We had to tweak things recently for our Linux products to understand about multi-core processors. Before we did that, we'd issue the users licenses that would be double the number of processors if they were using hyperthreading.
I charge on a per logic gate basis.
.. but hey .. who says i have to care about that?
I was going to charge on a per transistor basis but decided against it.
Yeah I realize I wont be utilizing all the logic gates per transaction
Vendors charge what the market will bear. Buyers pay the least they can for value. Charging per-processor, or any other basis, is just a way to negotiate prices without saying "how much have you got?", which would make the buyer more resistant. It's arbitrary, except as a way of measuring buyer's willingness to pay. Trying to derive finer-grained sense from per-processor licenses to per-core licenses is treating the price model with more respect than it deserves, so no wonder it breaks down quickly.
--
make install -not war
I mean, it's like 1 1/2 cores, so how do they handle that?
I've always found Oracle's licensing to be pretty wrong-headed at every turn. You can sense that they really don't feel they need to compete on price, which is usually the ultimate undoing of an overly arrogant company.
My sense of things, though, is that to move from one database technology to another is a massive undertaking. You fight with these tools so much that you become an expert with them... warts and all... and even if someone else has a better and cheaper mouse-trap, mission-critical stuff just refuses to budge off the old workhorse.
The dual-core problem is just a new flavor of the Oracle licensing problem. It will be interesting to see if they budge.
David Whatley
Ever hear of SPARC?
Essentially open source. Go join the consortium, and start building your own processor. Of course, you need your own Fab plant, engineers, material supply chains, circuit designers...
Oh, what do you know? Open source doesn't fix everything after all!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Oracle's stubborness says, time to start looking at DB2.
Absolutely. But how many can easily switch?
For a long time I have had (occasionally heated) arguments with SQL addicts who insist that almost everything about an application should be coded in SQL and stored procedures. Meanwhile I have been moving all my logic away from the database engine, using APIs such as Java Data Objects, which makes my code very rapidly portable between databases. Now I am in a position to switch my code (and data) easily between different database vendors if there is a licensing or price issue.
I strongly believe we should start to think of databases simply as engines for storing and retrieving inter-related objects and not as platforms for writing applications.
Wait until Cell processors become the norm... when you have a process that runs around your network looking for resources to run on.... Oracle's sales reps are going to have a field day with that one!
Due to greed and stagnancy, Oracle has maybe 5 years left before the "smell of rot" is all pervasive. When MySQL and PostgreSQL become so common place (think Apache on the net today vs. Netscape's web server from the mid to late '90s), Oracle will be lucky to be a million dollar company.
If you doubt my words, think of what MySQL and PostgreSQL were just a year ago. Then think "What will they be like with 5 more YEARS of development?". Then realize that they are free to everyone and you'll see why Oracle is doomed.
Of course, Microsoft will claim it as their victory, but you, me and everyone else not running SQL Server will know better.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
On one hand, a person with a dual core chip is likely to get slightly better performance than 2 actual chips.
...And a person with a 2GHz processor will get better performance
than a 1GHz processor (with the the same processor core, of course),
so why not charge based on clock rate?
But then, a person with a bigger L1 cache will also get better performance, so why not charge based on transistor count?
Why not just charge based on MFLOPS or MIPS? Why not charge based on actual transaction throughput?
This amounts to nothing more than a quick-and-easy way to try to sneak through a regular doubling of their pricing structure. Realistically, we can expect Moore's law to start applying to number of cores, rather than number of transistors. So, in 20 years, will Larry expect their customers to pay more than the GDP of most smaller industrialized nations? In 30 years, will he let us use Oracle if we just make him "Emperor Ellison I, monarch of Earth and the Lunar Colonies"?
No. In a few years, Oracle will simply reverse this policy, and go back to their current approach of striking the corporate rock with a big stick until it runs out of blood. That, or they will cease to exist. In the meantime... Anyone currently dependant on Oracle would do well to start migrating now, because, of the three possible outcomes (no change; no per-core pricing; going under), two mean you'll need to change eventually, and the remaining option means you'll at least get raped over the short-term.
Even upgrading to the latest version is a nightmare.
thus, logic states that it's no harder to switch than to upgrade...
What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming to the fore so strongly?
I can't say about the whole thing... What I do know is that because Oracle inflexibility, high pricing and intrusive license-checking they will certainly lose clients on the long run.
And it's not just about multi-core processors...
Let me give an example:
I do work in a Federal University in Brazil, and we don't have exacly much money available.
Several months ago we bought a 4-CPU Sun E450 and we were going to pay for an Oracle license accordingly to that machine (a MHz-based license), it was just a matter of waiting the money to come for that.
In the meantime, Oracle decided to change the license so it's now based on the number of CPUs. When FINALLY the money arrived and we noticed the money wouldn't be enough anymore.
In the end we've got a 1-CPU license and we had to physically remove the other 3 CPUs from the machine.
Because of this and many other things (like a license-monitoring software from Oracle we HAD to install, as if we were some sort of criminals) we're now planning the migration to PostgreSQL and never again to use Oracle.
Actually, MS has state publiclally that they'll only count physical CPUs, not cores when dealing with multi-cpu licenses.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"If the world worked like that, we'd all be running Linux and GPL software."
Not really. Even now many tasks have no GPL solution. 3D cad is a big one.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Exqueeze me please?
:) So not only are you getting the processor cheaper, you're HALVING your licence costs.
Everything I've read so far says that two separate chips will give better performance than a dual core at the same clock speeds.
So if you have a dual Xeon 3.6Ghz, you're likely to get better performance than a machine with a single dual core 3.6Ghz.
This comes down to cores having to wait for access to resources, etc.
This is why I don't like the dual core == dual licence scheme. I'm _NOT_ getting twice the performance as with a single chip, but I have to pay twice.
In fact, this is something that makes Fujitsu servers attractive as competition for Sun. You can get equivalent performance to a dual core Sun Sparc IV 1.25Ghz with a single 1.8Ghz Fujitsu Sparc processor. Those clock speeds might be slightly out, but find the nearest
Remember, it's not just a few players in the enterprise market that licence like this. Veritas, Oracle, HP Openview, Websphere MQ, they all do this. So if you can get the same performance from a single core CPU as you can from a dual core, halving your licence costs can be a big deal!
And it can hardly be argued that it's an issue of chip count, what if I were to take a dozen or more chips (PLAs, slice processors, and other exotic devices) and from these build up a single 386 class CPU? Clearly such a device would only require one license to run software, even though it was made of multiple chips. And since there are already court rulings that instruction sets can not be copyrighted, it is clearly my right to build such a device and software vendors would have no valid reason to keep me from legally buying copies of their software and running it on my creation.
One should also consider that my "single core" desktop computer actually contains at least two significant processors, the CPU and the graphics card (which may very well have more processing power than the CPU). While software like Oracle doesn't take advantage of the processing power of the graphics processor today, if some sophisticated user were to enhance his OS such that some improvements were made that could take some small advantage of the processing power of the graphics card, would this somehow change the processor count as far as Oracle was concerned?
If a 386 computer with a 387 co-processor counts as only one CPU, shouldn't I be able to designate one of two Athlon processors on my dual CPU motherboard as a "co-processor" and pay for only one machine? Sure, each of the Athlon processors is far more powerful that the 396 and 397 combined, but that's not the issue. And if chip count is the issue then the 386 and 387 certainly use as many or more chips (and more support chips).
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
So people will move to competition if the competition is more cost effective for them.
Exactly (potentially)...
The original question was, "Should Dual Cores Require Dual Licenses?"
There is no should or shouldn't.
A contract is an agreement between two parties.
One sets forward their terms. The other agrees, steps away, or offers ammended terms for consideration. A license is essentially just a representation of that.
"Should" a dual core require dual licenses? There is no should. Oracle are allowed to consider it essential to them and for them to walk away if they don't get their way - and potential users are allowed to consider it too high a cost and walk away if they don't get their way too. Or they can come to an agreement.
Inevitably, one of three things happen:
Customers walk away, Oracle reconsiders its stance.
Customers suck it up, deciding it's still worth it, if less so. Oracle continues.
Oracle loses overall share but profits per customer are higher, thus they're willing to continue with fewer, more valuable customers.
From Oracle's perspective, why should customers halve their license fees by simply upgrading to dual cores? What happens in a few years when Intel has 8 core CPUs? Do they only get 1/8th revenues? As Oracle sees it, they're right.
From the customer's perspective, all they did was upgrade their hardware with a single piece. As they see it, they're right.
In the end, there's not really the notion of right or wrong. Just two different views. Ultimately, equilibrium will likely settle it somewhere in the middle.
Didn't Oracle try speed-based licensing (something about per-MHz) around 2000?
Veritas is as bad or worse on "Tiered pricing". In past Oracle was worse and they charged on potential CPU's. If you had a eight CPU server, but only four CPU's installed they still charged for eight CPU's.
This is what drove many Oracle users to Windows, because Intel based servers tend to be smaller.
Oracle came after the place I was working for being out of license by around a million dollars. After a long negotiations Oracle agreed to charge us per installed CPU. So after signing the agreement with started pulling CPU's and max'ing out RAM. We ended up only owing Oracle a few thousand, and maintained performance with the extra RAM.
Veritas NetBackup is the same thing. Explain to me why it cost more to backup a multi-CPU server.
You mean like BRL-CAD?p l?sid=05/0 1/08/1823248&tid=185
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.
so why not charge based on clock rate?
I guess your not familiar with Oracle licenses? They do charge by clock rate and a different rate depending on the type of processor. If its a regular x86 proc the multiplier is 1x, if its something like a RISC chip, its 2x the clock rate.
Software is simply a component. Adding 256 Megs of RAM will cost about the same for my old 300MHz K6-2 as it will for a reasonably fast modern CPU.
In the end it's all about supply and demand. If they price it at an amount targetted at the Sunfire F25K, then they'll simply lose the business of the local database user. So they use number of processors as a means for segmentation. This means they can charge a lot to people who can afford a lot, and less to people who can't afford as much. Fair enough, but this isn't about fairness. It's about maximising profits. I could go into more detail, but this guy has already written a long winded article about the subject.
Let them charge whatever they want. The massive companies with money to burn will still burn it.
The rest of us that would never shelled out for oracle anyways will keep on using postgresql, to our advantage.
This goes beyond simple enterprise databases. Look at spatial databases. In Canada, it costs roughly $50,000 plus $13,000 per year in maintenance fees for an ArcSDE / Oracle based spatial database license.
Or, it costs nothing but your time if you choose to make an equally powerful, easier to use spatial database using PostGIS.
So, you can buy your spatial database, or you can have a database plus (at least in the purchase year) pay for a dedicated person to play with it for you.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
Because size isn't the only metric for a database implementation. It probably isn't the most important either.
Availability and performance are at least as important - particularly for big corporate types. Availability is in part given by multiple CPUs. Performance can also be addressed by multiple CPUs - particularly where large memory caches are allocated.
And ultimately that is why people choose Oracle - not to create gigantic databases, but for high-performing, high-availability, centralised processing databases.
So if you have a dual Xeon 3.6Ghz, you're likely to get better performance than a machine with a single dual core 3.6Ghz.
This comes down to cores having to wait for access to resources, etc.
I think you are not saying what you think you are saying. In the case of Intel they should be nearly identical, since Intel shares the memory bu between two processors whether the cores are on one piece of silicon or two. AMD wil be an interesting study since a dual opteron can have memory for each processor, and each has its own connection to the peripherals. Weras all other thngs being equal a dual core Opteron would have only one memory bus for both cores and share a connection to the peripherals.
You can get equivalent performance to a dual core Sun Sparc IV 1.25Ghz with a single 1.8Ghz Fujitsu Sparc processor.
This suggests you are thinking single core higher clock vs two processors (dual core or separate). Which can often be true depending on the software.
There are two issues here, not one.
First, should a multi-core processor chip count as more than one CPU. Second, should software be licensed on a per-CPU basis.
I think it's obvious that a multi-core processor chip should count as multiple CPUs. Arguments otherwise seem to equate a "chip" and "CPU", something laughably oversimplified. You can have "processors" that involve no chips at all (remember TTL "CPU boards"?), or that are made up of dozens of chips -- so there is really no inherent relation between "processor" and "chip".
Put a dual-core chip, or a quad-core chip, into your machine, and you have to deal with the same issues as a dual-processor or quad-processor machine.
[I would love to see how many 6502s or 6800s could fit in the space of a "modern CPU" die, possibly with some RAM on-chip for each "core". Play the games with clock speed on top of all that, and it might be something quite interesting to program for.]
The second issue is harder, and shouldn't be allowed to influence the definition of what is or is not a "CPU". If you don't agree with per-CPU licenses, then don't fudge the definition of "CPU", rail against the real grip: per-CPU licenses. If you do claim to agree with per-CPU licenses but are too cheap to actually PAY them once you get a machine with multiple CPUs, stop trying to muddy the water by claiming your multiple-CPU machine really isn't a multiple-CPU machine.
If your concern is that *all* new machines will eventually end up as multiple-CPU machines, that's yet another legitimate concern, but if you chase the bleeding edge, you're going to bleed. Don't pretend to be suprised by it.
Personally, I don't much care for multiple-CPU licenses. I'd rather deal with a per-machine, per-user, per-organization, or site license. But not all businesses want to play that game, and that's okay, so long as there's always an alternative.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
"What does Oracle's stubbornness imply for the industry as a whole, with multicore chips coming to the fore so strongly?"
more marketshare.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
-
Using software. If software had no licence, then the default legal position is that you're free to use it as you see fit. There's no need to 'grant' that right in a licence, because you already have it!
-
Secondly, there's copying. As you might expect, this falls under copyright law: you're not allowed to make copies of software (unless you own the copyright, or have a licence from someone who does).
Do you see why different laws apply in the two cases? If you're just using software, then that has nothing to do with copyright law because you're not copying it.Licences like the GPL and BSD ones say nothing about using software, so you're back to that legal position of being able to use it how you like. OTOH, companies like Oracle and Microsoft make you agree to a licence before you can use the software, so they restrict that right. Those licences are contracts, so if there's a problem, it's a matter of contract law.
Proprietary software licences don't usually give you the right to copy software (apart from backup purposes), but the GPL and BSD licences do. So they're adding rights, not taking them away. If you don't comply with them, you're back to the default legal rights, so you're still free to use the software how you like; you just can't copy it (which would violate copyright law).
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
That's like saying a hard drive with four platters is really four hard drives, not just one.
I'm not surprised in the least that an organization whose sole purpose is to generate profits, is looking at a creative (if rediculous), means to improve their bottom line. That is their job. In fact it's job one, and any CEO that forget's that will soon be looking for work.
That said, it is the purpose of people, the citizenry, the public, you and me, to make certain that when a company attempts to make a profit by paving your and/or anybody elses' ass over, we step up and say 'NO". We do this through legal channels, we do this through regulatory bodies, and we do this with our pocket books.
In the not too distant future, a machine at the center of your home, or your weareble technology, will have a reconfigurable processor perfectly capable of spinning up dozens or even hundreds of cores. One or more may be running proprietary software that some company can claim they should be getting paid for. The point is, that only one customer, is receiving value from their singular operation of a product they purchased for their own personal use.
I'm terribly sad this makes it more complicated for HP and Oracle to charge time against service, but to suggest that they should be getting paid by the core is rediculous... as a response, I'd suggest that if they want to charge by the core, that as users we resond by paying only for the process time alotted. By paying them only so many femtocents per Core cycle, they would suddenly see a significant drop in profits, and would see the err of their ways, hopefully shutting up and thanking their lucky stars that they still have a product and some semblance of a customer base (keep screwing with your patrons and see what that does to your long term profits...)
I don't blame them for money grubbing... it's not pretty, but it's kind of expected. I do blame them for shear stupidity... what makes them think people will just assume the position and take what it is they're trying to sell us... for shame...
Genda
and the concord is faster (and more expensive) then a 727. but you won't catch me, my friends or business associates flying in a concord. i think most people in this forum KNOW that oracle is faster and more powerful. it doesn't take a mental giant to know that oracle is _the_ peformance leader. (though one might get that impression because of the number of people who will still pipe up "hey but oracle is the king. hey oracle is faster") your post is no better then the grand parents. you MIGHT have posted something useful like examples where postgresql would be more appropriate or where oracle is more appropriate. why don't you stfu, and crawl back under your rock.