Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


License By Core


License By Core

Author
Message
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC-Dedicated
SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)SSC-Dedicated (36K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 36143 Visits: 18747
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
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
IceDread
IceDread
Old Hand
Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 329 Visits: 1145
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.
paul.goldstraw
paul.goldstraw
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)Ten Centuries (1.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1272 Visits: 1765
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
Andeavour
Andeavour
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1002 Visits: 932
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?



Eric M Russell
Eric M Russell
SSCarpal Tunnel
SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)SSCarpal Tunnel (4.6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 4619 Visits: 9553
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.


"The universe is complicated and for the most part beyond your control, but your life is only as complicated as you choose it to be."
Mattrick
Mattrick
SSChasing Mays
SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)SSChasing Mays (602 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 602 Visits: 767
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
Dizzy Desi
Dizzy Desi
SSC Journeyman
SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)SSC Journeyman (79 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 79 Visits: 687
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.
IceDread
IceDread
Old Hand
Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 329 Visits: 1145
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.
GilaMonster
GilaMonster
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)SSC-Forever (47K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 47259 Visits: 44387
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, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
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


IceDread
IceDread
Old Hand
Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)Old Hand (329 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 329 Visits: 1145
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.
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search