Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12»»

License By Core Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, November 8, 2011 9:24 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 10:02 AM
Points: 33,188, Visits: 15,323
Comments posted to this topic are about the item License By Core






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1202597
Posted Tuesday, November 8, 2011 11:56 PM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:16 AM
Points: 295, Visits: 1,011
The only advantage ms sql server has over oracle is it's price. Some would perhaps make an argument for the user interface as well. If ms sql server were to become closer in price to oracle, there is no reason at all to stay with ms sql server since it's inferior in every way.
Post #1202641
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 4:29 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:26 AM
Points: 1,054, Visits: 1,417
I don't like this move, and it's not just because it might prove more expensive, it just seems fundamentally wrong to start counting cores, and here's why.

Multi-core CPUs were largely introduced to cater for the fact that the chip manufacturers were largely finding they couldn't ramp up the clock speeds on their CPUs like they used to, and to keep the raw speeds going up, they started throwing more cores at the problem instead. Since this is effectively the natural progression of things and no real indication of additional power (in 5 years time we may well have 32 core CPUs etc), it is as senseless as expecting a user to pay more a decade ago for a 2GHz server than for a 1GHz server.

I believe physical CPU sockets should remain the way this is calculated as clearly adding additional CPUs is something that is outside the normal trend of CPU development. Additional cores however are the way the market has been going for some years now and it doesn't seem right to financially penalise someone just for having a more up-to-date CPU which naturally will have more cores
Post #1202746
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 5:31 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, August 21, 2014 6:44 AM
Points: 987, Visits: 869
The new SQL boxes we're moving to now (with hyperthreading) report 80 cores, (I believe they are running 2 - 20 core processors). If this means that we would move from 2 per processor licenses under the current model to 40 (or even 80) under the new model, unless the cost of a per processor license is coming down, then SQL is going to price itself out of the game. With those kind of licensing costs it would be more cost effective to run Oracle...
Is this definitely a given, or just a rumour? How sure are we that Microsoft is going to slit SQL's throat like this?



Post #1202765
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 6:47 AM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:07 AM
Points: 1,651, Visits: 4,705
IceDread (11/8/2011)
The only advantage ms sql server has over oracle is it's price. Some would perhaps make an argument for the user interface as well. If ms sql server were to become closer in price to oracle, there is no reason at all to stay with ms sql server since it's inferior in every way.

The usability of SQL Server compared to Oracle is deeper than just the GUI tools. It has to do with the underlying architecture. SQL Server is much easier to configure, secure, maintain, learn, and develope on. Even if the licensing cost of SQL Server and Oracle were identical, SQL Server would still be a more cost effective platform for developing and supporting database applications.
Post #1202815
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 7:30 AM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:43 PM
Points: 581, Visits: 732
At first glance, it appears that Microsoft is getting rid of the most visible advantage they have over Oracle, price point. I really do not like this move.

However, in 2008R2 EE, there were hidden benefits provided while licensing for CPUs:

1. Disaster Recovery servers are included, as long as users do not connect to those instances.
2. If you license all CPUs, you were entitled to 7 additional Operating System Environments (OSEs) with SQL Server installed, as long as it is on the same hardware.
2a. If you had Software Assurance, you were entitled to unlimited OSEs.

I am sure I missed some additional benefits as well. The only thing mentioned in the licensing datasheet for 2012 is item 2a. If the DR and 7 OSE entitlements are gone, the value of SQL Server is gone with them, in my opinion.

This is just like Microsoft though. They announce a fantastic product that gets professionals excited about upgrading. By all indications, this is a product that they seemed to have gotten right. Then they allow their licensing team to ruin it by following Oracle's lead, instead of dictating to Oracle how licensing should and will be done in this industry. I am disappointed by this.

They are stating, in their licensing datasheet, that 4 2012 core licenses will be equivalent, in price, to 1 CPU socket license from 2008R2. Therefore, if you have 2 CPUs with 8 cores each (not uncommon), you are essentially doubling your licensing cost. Just in time for budgets too!


Sorry for the rant,

Matt
Post #1202862
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 7:34 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 25, 2014 10:27 AM
Points: 71, Visits: 671
Eric M Russell (11/9/2011)
IceDread (11/8/2011)
The only advantage ms sql server has over oracle is it's price. Some would perhaps make an argument for the user interface as well. If ms sql server were to become closer in price to oracle, there is no reason at all to stay with ms sql server since it's inferior in every way.

The usability of SQL Server compared to Oracle is deeper than just the GUI tools. It has to do with the underlying architecture. SQL Server is much easier to configure, secure, maintain, learn, and develope on. Even if the licensing cost of SQL Server and Oracle were identical, SQL Server would still be a more cost effective platform for developing and supporting database applications.


I must agree with you, Eric. Considering that my company has seven full-time Oracle DBAs who manage approximately 20 servers and 100 databases, and only two SQL Server DBAs (one full- and one part-time) who manage approximately 100 servers and 1000 databases, there is clearly a cost advantage for SQL Server administration. And by the way, our largest Oracle database is 200GB, and our largest SQL database is over 1TB, so it's not a matter of all of the smaller databases going into SQL.

I would love to hear from IceDread, what makes him think SQL is so inferior to Oracle (other than maybe he is more familiar with Oracle). As a DBA (both SQL and Oracle) who also develops applications, I can tell you that Oracle is very difficult to create connections for - worrying about having the client on every platform (development, acceptance, production), and worrying about the versions of the client... I find that Oracle is just more complicated than it needs to be all the way around.
Post #1202869
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 7:37 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:16 AM
Points: 295, Visits: 1,011
Eric M Russell (11/9/2011)
IceDread (11/8/2011)
The only advantage ms sql server has over oracle is it's price. Some would perhaps make an argument for the user interface as well. If ms sql server were to become closer in price to oracle, there is no reason at all to stay with ms sql server since it's inferior in every way.

The usability of SQL Server compared to Oracle is deeper than just the GUI tools. It has to do with the underlying architecture. SQL Server is much easier to configure, secure, maintain, learn, and develope on. Even if the licensing cost of SQL Server and Oracle were identical, SQL Server would still be a more cost effective platform for developing and supporting database applications.


Are there some parts in specific you think about when you say that it's easier to learn ms sql server?

I view Oracle as a better database in general because it's more effective and has, to my knowledge, fewer bugs. In oracle you can also do load balancing, I have not found a way to load balance an sp in sql server. However, sql server is as you mention proven to be more secure.
Post #1202877
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 7:47 AM


SSC-Forever

SSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-ForeverSSC-Forever

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 10:38 AM
Points: 42,806, Visits: 35,926
Andeavour (11/9/2011)
Is this definitely a given, or just a rumour?


Definite given.

How sure are we that Microsoft is going to slit SQL's throat like this?


Speak with your MS rep (If you're running that kinda architecture you should have some enterprise agreement) and see what they can do for you re processor -> core licences. A core license is not the same price as a socket licence used to be. That would be a stupid move.



Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

Post #1202888
Posted Wednesday, November 9, 2011 7:48 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:16 AM
Points: 295, Visits: 1,011
Dizzy Desi (11/9/2011)
Eric M Russell (11/9/2011)
IceDread (11/8/2011)
The only advantage ms sql server has over oracle is it's price. Some would perhaps make an argument for the user interface as well. If ms sql server were to become closer in price to oracle, there is no reason at all to stay with ms sql server since it's inferior in every way.

The usability of SQL Server compared to Oracle is deeper than just the GUI tools. It has to do with the underlying architecture. SQL Server is much easier to configure, secure, maintain, learn, and develope on. Even if the licensing cost of SQL Server and Oracle were identical, SQL Server would still be a more cost effective platform for developing and supporting database applications.


I must agree with you, Eric. Considering that my company has seven full-time Oracle DBAs who manage approximately 20 servers and 100 databases, and only two SQL Server DBAs (one full- and one part-time) who manage approximately 100 servers and 1000 databases, there is clearly a cost advantage for SQL Server administration. And by the way, our largest Oracle database is 200GB, and our largest SQL database is over 1TB, so it's not a matter of all of the smaller databases going into SQL.

I would love to hear from IceDread, what makes him think SQL is so inferior to Oracle (other than maybe he is more familiar with Oracle). As a DBA (both SQL and Oracle) who also develops applications, I can tell you that Oracle is very difficult to create connections for - worrying about having the client on every platform (development, acceptance, production), and worrying about the versions of the client... I find that Oracle is just more complicated than it needs to be all the way around.


I view sql server as inferior because it's less effective, it can not really compete with Oracle in processing power.

I am not familiar with Oracle, I work with ms sql server and various applications and web applications done in .net.

I maintain my view on ms sql server as inferior simply because I view processing power as important and because I dislike sql servers effectivity and reporting servers bugs and ssis sometimes extremely lacking processing power.
Concerning ssis, maybe it only should be used for importing and exporting data, at which I find it fast enough. Traversing file systems are however extremely slow and done with a few rows of c# both developed fast and in practice also much faster.

As a side note I also prefer how Oracle handles null over sql server.

Edit: Concerning the dba perspective, I can not give much input there because I've worked with maybe 20 databases in total this far in my career, not hundreds, and I usually find the issues to be with the written code and how implementations are done.
Post #1202889
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse