November 9, 2011 at 10:58 am
To add a little more hard information (taken from http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/future-editions/sql2012-licensing.aspx, lower right, Licensing Datasheet, and http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/future-editions/sql2012-editions.aspx):
Enterprise edition: OS Max cores, Per-Core licensing only, only edition with compression and partitioning (listed under "Data Warehousing")
Business Intelligence edition: 16 cores max for DB, Server+CAL licensing only
Standard Edition: 16 cores max, both licensing options
To license a physical server properly, you must license all the cores in the server with a minimum of 4 core licenses required for each physical processor in the server.
Core licenses will be priced at 1/4th the cost of a SQL Server 2008 R2 (EE/SE) processor license:
The SQL Server 2012 CAL price will increase by about 27%.
To license a VM with core licenses, customers can simply buy a core license for each virtual core allocated to the virtual machine (minimum of 4 core licenses per VM).
Customers will be able to deploy an unlimited number of virtual machines on the server and utilize the full capacity of the licensed hardware. They can do so by fully licensing the server (or server farm) with Enterprise Edition core licenses and Software Assurance based on the total number of physical cores on the servers.
Commentary:
Moving closer to the Oracle model of licensing is not a good way to keep differentiating SQL Server from Oracle; now in both cases one has to pay attention to the specifics of the processors that happen to be on each box.
They fail to adequately specify what a "core" is - AMD's newest generation has only one floating point core per two integer cores, unlike Intel's current one floating point core per one integer core approach. For two integer cores + 1 floating point core, does that count as 2, as 1, or do we average it and use 1.5, conditional on having at least one floating point column in a database?
The artificial 16-core restriction on Standard and BI, combined with "you must license all the cores in the server", completely prohibits using Server+CAL licensing at all, and the cheaper editions, for truly modern 10 (Intel) and 12 (AMD) core processors in a basic dual socket server, or almost any modern processor in quad socket hardware.
The above means that some of us will be forced to change from Standard edition to... something else.
Buying new licenses for any modern machines are going to be hit with a serious price increase; nobody buying new licenses gets a price decrease (1/4 of the previous cost * 4 core minimum = the previous cost).
This puts a very artificial cost benefit to purchasing some of the older, higher speed, lower core count CPU's while they're still available. Note that these aren't even available for many of the most modern servers; you may well have to buy an older chassis as well.
This also puts an artificial cost benefit to Intel vs. AMD, simply because AMD is available with more cores now, and is looking to expand that core count per socket quickly.
Honestly, I see this as an exceptionally greedy move, the way Microsoft implemented it - I've only seen one "per-core" licensing scheme before, and I found it atrocious, too (and found another product to use).
The "4 core minimum", I see as blatant greed and a bad marketing move - for a business starting out, if they had the option for a cheap 1 core SQL Server VM license, some might perhaps be less inclined to look as hard for cheaper alternatives, like PostgreSQL or MySQL, and then they could keep upgrading their license as/if they grew.
Why force Software Assurance to deploy unlimited VM's on a server you licensed by physical core? If one buys per-core licensing, that should apply to the cores, and nothing else should matter.
I can see more server consolidation projects coming.
On the up side, more people are going to end up with compression and other Enterprise features
November 9, 2011 at 11:03 am
We just installed a new SQL2008R2 Cluster to replace an old SQL 2000 Cluster and it has two CPUs and 16 cores..... I cannot imagine under the new pricing model having to explain that when we budgeted out the upgrade.
November 9, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Just when we saw an opportunity to get on the SS2K8R2 bus then jump on to 2012 (after SP1 :)) Microsoft does something dumb and skewers this SMALL Business. We run a dual 8-way, costing us about $54K for the Enterprise version. Our plan to move to a SINGLE 12-way, higher GHz system and eventual SS2012 deployment looks like it will now reach stage 1 and hold at 2K8R2 for $27K - forget the $54K extra you want MS!
Dumb, really really dumb, as the U-tuber sings so well...
Does MS even BOTHER to talk to their customers, or do they desperately need the extra revenue to be perceived as "bigger than Apple"? (Just a thought...)
I've worked on Oracle for 6 years and SQL Server for 8. SS is FAR easier to manage - I jumped to MS from Oracle and will not go back! There are some things I missed from Oracle, but the: cost, lack of reasonably priced 3rd party tools, no out-of-the-box Management Studio equivalent - these far, far, far outweigh the lack of LPAD(), GREATEST() and a few other PL-SQL nicities, and the unfriendliness of Export/Import.
Performance hasn't been an issue - the main 135GB table I work with gives complex query results in under a second. A well-designed DB will perform with either DBMS. A poor one won't - in either.
SSRS is definitely less functional than Crystal. Developers I know HATED CR. I avoided it's non-intuitiveness and pain like the plague and find that so far there haven't been any deal-breaker issues with the SSRS2K8R2 product and Report Builder. Just MY experience and opinion, doubtless controvertable by others, but I don't seek any argument - opinions are by nature subjective whoever holds them.
SSIS has a steep learning curve and can bite you badly. But it is part of the Standard and upwards package and as a form of ETL or complex multi-step business process automation tool it has been more than sufficient "in my experience" (opinion). It needs more standard controls and far better learning materials that don't require one to purchase a book elsewhere.
Haven't used SSAS but, again, it's in the box, which is more than others.
The Oracle/SQL Server battle of words will likely persist until Armageddon. Everyone has the choice to work with work what they prefer. If a practitioner is experienced with multiple DBMS's (I have SQL Server(8), Oracle(6), Tandem(3) and DB2(10)) and expresses a preference, that preference at least comes from personal familiarity with alternatives... I FAR prefer SQL Server. The reader may prefer another DBMS or No-SQL/Cassandra - you're perfectly entitled to your valid opinion and choices. Let's leave that war of words at the sidelines.
As far as the MS license is concerned - BADLY DONE, BADLY DONE INDEED (to quote from the movie, Emma).
November 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm
IceDread (11/9/2011)
...As a side note I also prefer how Oracle handles null over sql server...
Well, unlike SQL Server, Sybase, DB2, etc.; Oracle's implementation of NULL equality doesn't conform to ANSI standard.
select case when '' is null then 'True' else 'False' end
as empty_string_is_null from dual;
EMPTY_STRING_IS_NULL
--------------------
True
However, Oracle may dissapoint you by changing this behaviour in their next release.
Oracle Database SQL Language Reference 11g - Nulls
Oracle Database currently treats a character value with a length of zero as null. However, this may not continue to be true in future releases, and Oracle recommends that you do not treat empty strings the same as nulls.
http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B28359_01/server.111/b28286/sql_elements005.htm
Oracle tends to have a lot of junk in it's trunk when it comes to supporting backward compatable features and language syntax that dates back to the '70s. There can be like a dozen different ways to acomplish the same task, some of them very obscure but still supported. You can't really learn to be an Oracle DBA without familiarizing yourself with it's archaic history and culture.
On the other Microsoft periodically prunes dead branches from the SQL Server tree, deprecating obsolete features, commands, and syntax. Certainly not everyone would agree, but I think that's a good thing.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
November 12, 2011 at 9:02 am
When I first read about the changes my heart sank, really. This is cutting into the best competitive edge MS has (in the eyes of the people who approve the spending) -- lower price. If this plays out anything like it looks now, SQL won't be the easy decision anymore. When the price tags are coming closer to the competition, now they really have to play on feature sets, and that's a harder sell to the CFO that doesn't want to understand that part.
Now the biggest advantage MS has (from my experience) over Oracle is Oracle sales themselves -- their reps have offended the management at the last 4 places I've worked (some arrogance, one making sexual comments and coming on to the female CEO). Oracle became automatically out of consideration for anything.
If the playing field is leveling on price, then I have a decision to make personally - do I put the time into learning the new BI on 2012, or do I put the time into learning Oracle, DB2, etc so I can argue the differences more effectively? I believe MS has several advantages, it's just now going to be harder to make the sale.
Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply