Re: Processor Based License Model
From: John Smith (a_at_nonymous.com)
Date: 05/13/04
- Next message: John Smith: "[OT]: Re: SPAM, etc"
- Previous message: Chuck Chopp: "Re: Processor Based License Model"
- In reply to: John Vottero: "Re: Processor Based License Model"
- Next in thread: Dr. Dweeb: "Re: Processor Based License Model"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 19:38:13 -0400
"John Vottero" <John@mvpsi.com> wrote in message
news:5Ysoc.6762$eH1.3385927@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> "Chuck Chopp" <ChuckChopp@rtfmcsi.com> wrote in message
> news:Nxsoc.1523$U4.1279@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > Barry Treahy, Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > I do know that for PC software, we're already had problems. We have
> > > engineering design software that is ONLY available for Windows and
they
> > > crucify you with a major license increase if you run on multiple
> > > processors. Well guess what the Intel P4 with HT looks like to
Windows,
> > > and to the software running on it? You guessed it!
> > > I agree with you that the licensing models must be rethought, but I'm
> > > sure that in the eyes of the CA's, Oracle's, HP's, etc., that would
mean
> > > they are being asked to 'leave money on the table' no matter how
> > > short-sighted their perspective might actually be... I can't see them
> > > making that choice quickly, or at all...
> >
> > And the really irritating aspect of a hyperthreading CPU appearing as a
> dual
> > CPU SMP system under Windows is that you don't necessarily get the same
> > performance increase as compared to having 2 separate CPUs with one core
> > each. If the on-board cache isn't increased and some of the other
issues
> > associated with memory access aren't resolved, you'll get a mult-core
CPU
> > that can't compete performance-wise with separate CPUs. Things like
NUMA
> > come to mind, along with instruction pre-fetching, pipelining, etc....
> >
> > Maybe for databases what we really need is a license that permits X
number
> > of transactions per seccond to be processed by the database. If you run
> it
> > on hardware that is insufficient to process the licensed TPS volume,
> that's
> > fine, you didn't under buy on your licensing and can perform a hardware
> > upgrade w/o increasing your licensing costs for the database. But, if
you
> > do upgrade your hardware and the hardware could now have the database
> > executing at a TPS rating higher than you are licensed for, the database
> > would simply throttle itself back to your licensed TPS limit.
> >
> > Wouldn't this make more sense for database software licensing? It would
> > certainly allow you to have a large SMP server and put a database
> > application on it that doesn't monopolize the server's resources while
not
> > also paying through the nose to run that database application on that
> large
> > server.
>
> It makes a lot of sense. Microsoft has already started doing something
like
> this. MSDE is actually SQL Server with a throttle and a db size limit of
> 2GB. The throttle kicks in at around 5 connections. You can redistribute
> MSDE with your application (for free). Lots of applications will work
just
> fine with the throttle. If performance becomes a problem, you just buy a
> SQL Server license.
>
> Man would I like to have something like this for Rdb. Digital was close
to
> that when they bundled runtime Rdb with VMS. Selling Rdb was one of the
> biggest mistakes Bob Palmer made.
Back then the market for tech stocks was just beginning to heat up. I wrote
Palmer suggesting that instead of selling Rdb to Oracle they spin off Rdb
into the market on an IPO, keeping a mid-sized 20% or so stake in the newly
public company. That was around the time that Rdb was to have been ported to
Unix and NT (as the DEC announcements went at the time).
Digital would have realized more than the $120M or thereabouts they received
from Oracle, and had a stake in the company as the largest shareholder in a
market of rising stocks. But the Digital Board of Directors was a bunch of
old fossils back then and .......
Having the bundled Rdb runtime was a great thing. It helped with a good
number of sales for us.
- Next message: John Smith: "[OT]: Re: SPAM, etc"
- Previous message: Chuck Chopp: "Re: Processor Based License Model"
- In reply to: John Vottero: "Re: Processor Based License Model"
- Next in thread: Dr. Dweeb: "Re: Processor Based License Model"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
