Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AMD's 12-Core Chip Cuts Software Licensing Costs

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the fewer-boxes-fewer-problems dept.

AMD 217

CWmike writes "AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-Cours, doubling the number of cores over the previous-generation Opteron chip. While a doubling of performance is nice, another key benefit delivered by a chip with a dozen cores may be in reducing software costs. For Matt Lavallee, director of technology at MLS Property Information Network, a company that supplies real estate data, upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers — and his software licensing fees. While the 12-core chip costs a little more than an eight-core chip, it's 'nowhere near as much as a SQL server costs,' said Lavallee, who has been beta-testing the new chips. MLS operates 60 servers, and Lavallee said he could theoretically cut the number of servers by half but will likely reduce his server count by a third with the chip upgrade." Reader adeelershad82 adds that AMD is hoping the new Opterons will compete with Intel in the high-volume server market.

cancel ×

217 comments

Per-core licensing? (4, Funny)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662140)

Has MS updated their licensing to be "per-core" instead of "per-CPU"?

Re:Per-core licensing? (3, Informative)

iammani (1392285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662160)

Apparently per-core licensing is only for Windows Server, and not SQL Server.

Re:Per-core licensing? (1)

bynary (827120) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662172)

Good to know. Thanks!

Re:Per-core licensing? (2, Insightful)

Bobartig (61456) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662224)

Of course, don't expect that to last long considering how multi-core things are getting.

Re:Per-core licensing? (2, Informative)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662446)

Huh? Windows Server is licensed:

Standard and Enterprise: per server (motherboard?)
Datacenter: per CPU socket

Re:Per-core licensing? (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662822)

I've heard that SQL server is licensed per core, but Windows Server is licensed per socket.

Server Enterprise, IIRC, is licensed per socket. I think a single license is good for up to 4 sockets.

Re:Per-core licensing? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662904)

SQL Server licensing is per socket, unless it has changed in the past year. At my last job we were able to save a nice chunk of money by upgrading our SQL machine to single quad-cores instead of dual dual-cores.

Re:Per-core licensing? (4, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662836)

Nope, Server Standard and Enterprise are per system, Datacenter is per socket (not core). Enterprise allows for 4 additional OS images on the same hardware, datacenter allows unlimited.

Re:Per-core licensing? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662192)

I believe MS always licensed SQL on a per-core basis, never on a per-socket basis. Thus, the article is BS.

Re:Per-core licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662418)

Except you're wrong and MS always licensed SQL on a per socket basis, never per core. Thus, your post is BS.

Re:Per-core licensing? (2, Insightful)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662510)

Rendering both posts moot is the fact that the 12-core Opteron performs like a 6-core Xeon, meaning that licensing would be the same per-socket anyhow since you wouldn't be able to reduce the number of servers/processors any more than you already can.

Re:Per-core licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663626)

If that's true, then it's more a reflection of MS software's ability to scale with the number of cores than a reflection of the potential processing capacity of AMD Opterons vs. Xeons.

Re:Per-core licensing? (3, Informative)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662226)

Microsoft hasn't. Some others have though. It gets complicated though. IBM for example uses "performance units" for some of it's software. Single core x86 machines are 50 units per core. Dual Core and Quad-Core x86 machines are 25 units per core - so going single to dual costs you nothing extra but single to quad doubles the software price. They also value some processors differently than others. Certain Sun processors for example are 35 units per core. You pay a certain amount per unit.

In general though, I'm sure the software makers will catch on eventually. I specifically got a single quad core for my last SQL server to avoid a dual-cpu license (which is an extra $6k or so).

Re:Per-core licensing? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662430)

And by 'eventually', he means 'next week, if not later this week'.

Re:Per-core licensing? (3, Informative)

johneee (626549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662492)

The last time I priced out Oracle software it was $X per CPU for the first core on a physical package and then $X/2 for each core after that. So a 12 core CPU over 2X 6 core CPUS would basically save you half a CPU license. Which given Oracle's pricing, could be a whole heck of a lot.

That was a few years back, so it may be different now.

Re:Per-core licensing? (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662892)

No, on x86/x64 it's core count/2 for Oracle software licensed per CPU (no additional license is needed for the first core).

Re:Per-core licensing? (4, Insightful)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663450)

The fact that one can argue about it means it is too damn complex.

Re:Per-core licensing? (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663628)

Actually Oracle licensing is based on a simple formula of:

(Number of cores * scaling based on how good the cores are + bytes of RAM / salesman's commission + number of users / number of ginger people in your organisation) + sqrt(-2) * phase of the moon

Re:Per-core licensing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663766)

+5 Informative if you ask me.

Re:Per-core licensing? (1)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663218)

Shhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas!

Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (4, Insightful)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662150)

Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662232)

I wonder if it's now $699 per cock-smoking teabagger core these days?

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (0, Offtopic)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662284)

I KNEW the SCO thing would come up in this discussion, and it occurs within the first 10 replies. Bravo, sir.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662854)

I KNEW the SCO thing would come up in this discussion, and it occurs within the first 10 replies.

Since the OP used the term "cocksmoking" I think he may have been talking about a different OS with a three-character name.

What? What'd I say?

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663404)

I c wat u did thar

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662356)

I wonder if it's now $699 per cock-smoking teabagger core these days?

CPU cores are actually closeted homosexual radical anti-government conservatives? Who knew?

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (-1, Troll)

rraylion (1406761) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662410)

You are right the licensing cost will not change -- but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source can you effectively price the cost you incuur by not know the gains of the other side... SQL server is solid ... and Oracle is just as good if not hands down better ... and as those two companies innovate and create new funtionality and robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them??

And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.

What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662494)

And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year.

Fair enough, but I don't think how many physical CPUs versus cores on a server impacts that price.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662550)

but as you wait for knew advancement/ innovation to filter down to open source

I can do everything MLS does with open source technology and I could do it cheaper and faster and without worrying about retarded "per-core" licensing. As soon as someone uses the word "innovation" to replace "value" then you know they are talking out of their ass. Open Source servers are a SOLVED PROBLEM, one need only ask actual leading edge companies like Google, Facebook, and even Slashdot how they can handle millions and billions of users without expensive licenses for proprietary software.

the fee for linux is the cost of the admins

Yes because Windows admins are free. Can I have some of what you are smoking?

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (1)

Singularity42 (1658297) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663164)

Wow, just you? Figures a post-Singularity intelligence would post anonymously.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (1, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662618)

Postgres is already better than SQL server, Oracle is were the competition might be. Except Oracle is just so damn expensive. Postgres 9 will add lots of nice new features.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (5, Interesting)

rawler (1005089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662758)

And the fee for linux is the cost of the admins -- the people who are good in the environment know they are good and their price goes up every year -- it takes about three years to become really proficient at most MS products - it might take half a year to really understand the linux environment and methodology if you are unfamiliar and then another 4 - 5 to gain that same profiencency equivalent.

Interestingly, I work for a company where the IT-department is a pure Microsoft-shop. Only windows-hosting and almost only C#-development for internal applications. In the technology department however, we operate a bunch of production-system for our customers, running mostly CentOS Linux. Lately, I've discovered that the Linux-admin-staff often writes simple script-solutions with their left hand, with equivalent complexity to systems written by trained developer in the IT department. And even though I personally often would rather see a more structured systematic approach to some problems, when listening to the end-users they almost always perceive they've gotten BETTER support and reliability from those scripts.

Point being that, a Linux-admin MAY cost a bit more than a windows-admin, and the learning-period might certainly be a bit longer, but I see much more productivity coming out of our Linux-crew than the windows-equivalent. More services hosted and administered per admin, and ~10 times the operational availability. Also, when more complex jobs needs being done (configuring network device, someone needs help with a tricky SQL query for a report, or needs someone to mirror a huge chunk of text-files into a searchable DB for performance), they usually come to the Linux-crew than the windows IS/IT.

What I will give the person who goes the linux route is that once you are profiecient in Linux - gaining the same proficeincy in other systems is cake - basically because the they are just easier to use in the first place.

Definitely matter of oppinion. Personally, I've never found anything "easy" about windows. Sure, the very limited amount of things you can do within three button-presses is usually simple enough (interestingly the same goes for modern Linux Desktops/Simple Server Setups). However, once something breaks, or you need/desire to stride outside the comfy gui-box, just forget about it. (IMHO) For example, a standard CentOS5 server install comes with high-availability software that from commercial vendors (IBM and HP, I don't know if Microsoft can even match the fully distributed transactional storage components) START at ~100K euro. For those money, I can let one high-school self-taught Linux hacker spend 2 years in researching and fine-tuning for the JUST the entrance fees of the proprietary variant. How would you estimate my chances of getting some more use out of that admin meanwhile?

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (1)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663510)

Yea, I think you stumbled upon the reason MS is easier to learn. You can do less with it. Linux is a swiss army knife and then some.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662768)

SQL server is solid ... Oracle is just as good if not hands down better

Oracle is hands down better - a lot better. But, you go way off into the weeds with stupidity and ignorance.

robustness to their product lines how long will it take for postgress to catch them??

Go read up about what's coming in PostgreSQL 9.0, which is right around the corner; plus its current feature set. Now go read about EnterpriseDB (commercial PostgreSQL offering). Not to mention, according to the FAA's (yes, that FAA) recent talk at PostgreSQL East Conference, PostgreSQL + PostGIS is roughly TWO ORDERS of magnitude faster than Oracle Spacial. Furthermore, recent benchmarks of Enterprise DB squarely pushes far into Oracle's warehousing territory; which also supports things like parallel load/query/indexing, etc. At the FAA, Oracle is being completely usurped by PostgreSQL. All new projects are to use PostgreSQL and/or PostGIS.

PostgreSQL has shown that it easily out scales MySQL for most common loads and its performance now trounces it in most cases. Plus, PostgreSQL's query optimizer makes MySQL's look like a toy. Additionally, even as far back as 2007, PostgreSQL was typically on par with Oracle's performance and scalability. More recently, PostgreSQL is typically on par or exceeds Oracle in performance. When talking about spacial queries, clearly according to the FAA, Oracle isn't even playing in the same park as PostgreSQL. And if you need seriously high end enterprise performance, commercial PostgreSQL offerings, such as EnterpriseDB, is here too.

So next time, before you start mindlessly mouthing off about open source catching up, you might want to put it into your head, its far more common for commercial needing to catch up with open source than the other way around; at least these days. Seriously, take a hard look at PostgreSQL. For the vast majority of users (small to medium size databases), MySQL, MSSQL, and Oracle shouldn't even be considered as PostgreSQL already has you covered. And frankly, MySQL isn't even in the same league as MSSQL, Oracle, and PostgreSQL.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (5, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662856)

I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

Learning Windows as in basic usage and administration is easy. Learning the basics for Linux is quite easy too.

Actual deep knowledge of Active Directory, MSSQL, Exchange, etc is the Windows equivalent of a competent Linux admin, and those people want quite a lot of money as well. True, if you want a monkey that reformats boxes and replaces broken hardware and helps the users a bit, then they can probably be found cheaper for Windows. But that's not who you want to maintain your business critical Oracle server. Actually competent admins with knowledge of the details, good understanding of databases, and especially people like Oracle DBAs aren't going to be cheap, no matter the OS.

There's nothing that easy about MS technologies. They're superficially easy, sure. But there's quite a lot underneath that.

Re:Cry me a MS licensing costs river! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663336)

Cry me a MS licensing costs river!
Fair enough, but my Linux licensing costs won't change!

Hate to be the first to point this out, but Microsoft does not make Oracle.

And if you are running Oracle and your costs don't change based on how many CPU/cores you run it on, EVEN ON LINUX, you are basically running unlicensed software.

Or did you just ignore the fact they said SQL fee and not Windows fee.

and speaking of the article, it is referencing a huge company (Thus why Oracle fees are OK when compared to the other non-options of less cost)
Pirating software in a huge company is very not wise. I can't believe you would suggest it! You did mention it because you were suggesting a solution right?

I'm not sure about that (4, Insightful)

bigtomrodney (993427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662156)

Almost all of the enterprise software we buy charges by the CPU and by the seat. For this purpose a CPU core is the same thing as seperately socketed CPU. Whatever about OS savings I think you'd save more in hardware and running costs than you would on software.

Re:I'm not sure about that (1)

kramulous (977841) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663276)

There are also some very nice caveats in some licensing documents that stipulate "no more than two instances of 'program' can be running on the same host". Not that they enforce it with flexlm just that is what they tell you, expect you to figure it out and police it.

Only until (2, Insightful)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662166)

Oracle, MS and others change the licensing to require a charge per core.

Re:Only until (2, Interesting)

zero_out (1705074) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662248)

These companies will always protect their bottom line. It's an arms race of sorts. Increase power to cut down on the need for servers and licenses, and these companies will change their licensing models / costs to ensure that you are still paying the amount in the end. It's the same with HDDs and other hardware. The price/GB may go down, but the size of the drives just keep going up, ensuring that you still pay $100 to replace your parents' dead HDD, no matter the decade.

Re:Only until (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662400)

Were HD's really only $100 a decade ago?

Re:Only until (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662712)

Were HD's really only $100 a decade ago?

Not too far off anyway. I bought a 40 GB drive for the family computer when I was in high school, which would have put it at almost exactly a decade ago. I'm nearly positive I completely paid for it myself, which means it couldn't have been very expensive as I didn't have a job then.

Re:Only until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663248)

I bought my first SCSI controller (1542b) and 1G drive for $1,300. Its amazing what you can get for the same bucks these days.

Re:Only until (1)

takev (214836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663554)

I've noticed this for a while, it is not just the harddisk.
From the first clone XT PC to a modern DELL computer, the prices haven't changed much at all.

Although one of the thread children says he could get a 1GB drive with a SCSI controller for $1300, he should not forget to compare that to the highend of today, which would be a SAS controller (400 dollar for real RAID (not fake raid)) with SAS disk (500 dollar for a 10,000 rpm).

Ok, ok, 30% drop of price :-)

Re:Only until (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662302)

Oracle already do charge per core

What this says actually... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662184)

Is that software licensing is a rip off to begin with.

oh geeze.... (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662200)

upgrading to the 12-core Opteron chip from his current quad-core chips will allow him to cut the number of servers — and his software licensing fees.

Really? You mean, as computers get faster you *might* need fewer of them?

With the advent of the T1, you didn't need 24 DS0 lines, which saved me money on my telecom fees!

I would have thought the real-estate market downturn saved him a bundle on licensing.

Do you have any evidence for this? (3, Interesting)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662628)

Really? You mean, as computers get faster you *might* need fewer of them?

No really. Please provide evidence for the thesis that as computers get faster, people need fewer of them.

Second point. It's usually the I/O performance anyway. A 12 core server is unlikely to be able to push as much throughput as 3 quad cores, given the same I/O technology.
 

Re:Do you have any evidence for this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663314)

I think that's what he said "might".

Re:Do you have any evidence for this? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663668)

Please provide evidence for the thesis that as computers get faster, people need fewer of them.

It's not a bad thesis, but it's somewhat countered by the other effect of Moore's Law: as computers become cheaper, people are more likely to buy more of them than they need.

Re:oh geeze.... (2, Insightful)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662726)

As computers get faster, software becomes more bloated and runs slower.

Opposite problem with Oracle licensing (2, Informative)

pyite69 (463042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662290)

They license per-core, so more cores per CPU can be more costly.

Re:Opposite problem with Oracle licensing (1, Informative)

msgyrd (891916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662518)

Especially if you wanted to run it inside a VM and only allocate some fraction of the cores to that instance. Still gotta pay for the cores/box, not cores assigned. Thanks Oracle. Other than price rape, and a general level of half-assery that ensures they'll have to visit you on site to fix the shit they sold to your boss, I don't understand why enterprise software needs to know what hardware you're using anyways.

Re:Opposite problem with Oracle licensing (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663678)

Especially if you wanted to run it inside a VM and only allocate some fraction of the cores to that instance. Still gotta pay for the cores/box, not cores assigned. Thanks Oracle.

Last time I checked, this wasn't the case with Solaris zones (specifically referring to T-series machines). You could dedicate a particular number of vCPUs (Niagara cores) to a zone (zone.cpu-cap / capped-cpu.ncpus ?), and it would qualify as "hard partitioning" so you could limit your license costs.

http://www.oracle.com/corporate/pricing/partitioning.pdf
http://www.sun.com/third-party/global/oracle/consolidation/Containers_Oracle_041305.pdf

The rest of the vCPUs could then be used for other zones (aka containers).

Re:Opposite problem with Oracle licensing (4, Informative)

BillyGee (981263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662776)

Actually Oracle charges per socket on Standard and Standard One licenses and per Core only on Enterprise licenses.

ever heard of MySQL? (2, Interesting)

macbeth66 (204889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662306)

Why the heck is he paying anything? Just use MySql and be done with it. It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff. And it is free to boot! sheesh.

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662368)

MLS Property Information Network = network for estate agents.

Estate agents = cocks.

You get it?

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (1, Insightful)

GNUALMAFUERTE (697061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662538)

You have to understand the mindset behind this kind of people.

They use a privative SQL server, but that's not it. They also use a privative OS, CMS, ERP, etc,etc.

You'll find people that use either mostly Free Software, or mostly privative software. 50% / 50% or other rational "whatever fits" scenarios are hard to come by. People either believe that Free Software is a better alternative, or they believe that having a big soulless corporation behind their software means they'll get better software.

Also, many companies have managers and techies that know nothing but windows, ASP and MsSQL and are scared of changing anything.

People usually complain about Free Software zealots using nothing but GPLed software, but there are privative software zealots out there too, and they don't analyze their options either, they just compulsively buy the most expensive option from $VENDOR.

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662576)

He probably cares about his data, so postgres is the only FREE alternative for him.

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662660)

You are obviously being a sarcastic troll, but there is some truth to the idea of using an open source approach.

MLS is a site that has clearly been designed by old school developers who know nothing but what Microsoft has taught them. First they came up with a relational data model using SQL server, then they built a site around it. This is exactly the opposite of how you build a truly useful and scalable system. Data should be subservient to implementation, not the other way around. This is why companies like Google and Facebook don't sit around worrying about per-cpu licensing costs and companies like MLS do.

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (4, Insightful)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662698)

Sorry, MySQL isn't in the slightest comparible to MSSQL or Oracle. It doesn't have half the features, it's buggy, and it's generally slower. Tooling is also poor in comparison. It's still, unforunately, a toy.

MySQL does well in the web. That's because it's free licence is suited to horizontal expansion - throw lots of cheap servers at it (where such expansion is possible). Tight integration with PHP just puts the icing on the cake. However, compared to other stacks it's poor. Both MSSQL/ASP.net and Oracle/Java-application-server perform significantly better (often factors) than the MySQL/PHP stack.

So buying Microsoft/Oracle might seem expensive, that is often not the case.

But the web isn't the world for databases. There are lots of other usages.

MSSQL is for example is ideal for SMEs, you get a heck of a lot for your money - very well performing database with mature, well integrated and well performing stack. Plus a really nice BI implementation built right in, with nice easy GUIs for dummies / business users.

Oracle's the daddy. It's complex but it's a more capable db than MSSQL. As a developer you have fine grain control over how the engine works. For certain enterprise applications it's the only real option (apart from going to IBM). I've been lead to believe that it's the performance king too.

If you're serious about open source databases, then you need to use a serious open source database as an example. Both Ingres and PostgreSQL are mature, well performing and fully featured databases which are available under an open source license. They're what you should be comparing with SQL Server / Oracle. Not MySQL.

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (4, Interesting)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662864)

I have an SME ERP background, and while all of what you say is correct, in my fairly extensive experience (since 1987) as a VAR and working on the inside at Sage, it is rare to run across a customer, at least in the mid-market ($5 to $50 million in revenues) that actually needs all the features of MSSQL. Hell, most of them do just fine with c-isam or btrieve style files. Most companies in this segment can do just fine with MySQL. Also, there are lots of tools out there. None quite as good as SQL Studio, I'll give you that, but Navicat, for example, is pretty good and affordable. My biggest issue with MySQL is what Oracle is going to do (or not do) with it...

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (1)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663142)

Honestly, I think PostgreSQL is the ideal RDBMS for SME's. It has many of the advantages of MS SQL without the OLAP stuff, but has a team exceptionally committed to correct operation of the database, something MySQL has never had. Pg's performance is extremely good under complex workloads, and it is exceptionally robust. Really about the only thing it doesn't do is scale vertically as well as DB2, Oracle, or Terradata.....

Re:ever heard of MySQL? (1)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663700)

Why the heck is he paying anything? Just use MySql and be done with it. It is certainly easier to use/setup/maintain than that crappy SQL Server stuff. And it is free to boot! sheesh.

I have n great love of MS SQL Server, but it does have a place. There is a ton of "Enterprisey" software that requires it. (Or is only additionally supported on Oracle.) When the options are:
1 - Spend a few grand on a server and software
2 - Spend (a few - 2) grand on a server, then millions of dollars to have something custom developed, and wait three years before you can use it

Sometimes, option #1 is the sensible choice. Especially if you get into a use case where MS SQL Server performs better than MySQL.

That said, I'm currently working on some software for film post production that is being developed primarily with MySQL. For my use, I can't see any reason that MS SQL Server or Oracle would help the project. Of course, it will be pretty much trivial for me to migrate to Postgres or any of the others with a minimum of development effort because I'm not a psychotic brain-damaged puppy like genuine "Enterprisey" developers.

Incidentally, I'm using Qt in c++. If anybody else starting a database client type application is wondering, the Qt SQL stuff has worked really well on all my projects. Moving from MySQL to MSSQL or whatever is pretty much trivial in terms of application code. The only real PITA is building the right Qt database driver on your required platform(s). Just a matter of tracking down all the right dependencies and whatnot. Even if you aren't using the GUI stuff, you may want to check out Qt. For smaller stuff, I use python, which has a consistent db-api, which also makes it pretty much trivial to migrate between databases.

But, sadly, I'm still stuck supporting stuff that requires MS SQL Server because it was made by those damned "experts."

SQL Server is CPU bound? (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662346)

In my experience, it's rare for SQL Servers to be CPU bound, they're almost invariably IO bound, and having more cores won't help you when your disks are the bottleneck. I could see excitement over lowering per-machine costs for something like a renderfarm, but it doesn't seem likely to materialize for Databases.

Re:SQL Server is CPU bound? (4, Informative)

GodsMadClown (180543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662520)

Yep, that's why you would like to cache as much in RAM as possible. AMD can help you there.

http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3784&p=15 [anandtech.com] ...
The Opteron 6100 series offers up to 24 DIMMs slots, the Xeon is “limited” to 18. In many cases this allows the server buyer to achieve higher amount of memory with lower costs.

Re:SQL Server is CPU bound? (1)

NSIM (953498) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663534)

THe "18 DIMM" limit is true until tomorrow.

Hmmm... will they create a SSD surcharge? (1)

WoTG (610710) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662754)

Huh, good point... I wonder if down the road you'll have to pay more for DB licenses that run on SSDs.

That's a silly question. (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662942)

Why would the software vendor not be paid for the increased performance afforded by being able to access cutting edge technologies like Solid State Disk? They've to test their software against this equipment to make sure the additional performance doesn't break something don't they? Not charging would be like giving value away for free.

Ok, seriously I'd like to see somebody benchmark a Postres cluster running on a couple Westmere 2-socket boxes and backed by a well-engineered 6G SATA SSD OpenFiler 10Gbps iSCSI cluster against an Oracle backed by SAN. That would be hilarious.

Naming scheme... (5, Insightful)

Archaemic (1546639) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662420)

AMD released on Monday its 12-core chip code-named Magny-Cours

Very clever, AMD. Naming your chip after a location in Europe as usual, but this time making it able to be read as "Many-Cores" (or possibly more accurately "Many-Core", I don't really know how to pronounce French words). Very clever indeed...

Re:Naming scheme... (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662526)

The best aproximation I can come up with in English is : "mah-nii coor"; Spanish : "mañi cúr"

Re:Naming scheme... (5, Informative)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662704)

AMD commercial server CPUs are named after Formula 1 racing tracks. Their server platforms are named for Ferrari facilities. Their desktop processors are named after stars, and the desktop platforms after constellations. Cite [brightsideofnews.com] .

Re:Naming scheme... (1)

Archaemic (1546639) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662896)

Guess I was confusing it with Intel's naming scheme then. It seemed to fit anyway. The point about the "many-core" name stands, though.

It is occasions like this that I wish I could mod replies to one's comments +1, Informative.

Re:Naming scheme... (1)

hibiki_r (649814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663024)

In this case, a former Formula 1 circuit, which hadn't produced a very entertaining race in years prior to its removal from the circus. Soon, Spa-Francorchamps

Re:Naming scheme... (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662842)

I would have preferred Mangy Cores..

Seems a bit more "dirty" like its a scrappy street fighter..

Re:Naming scheme... (1)

master811 (874700) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663690)

Actually they are named after F1 tracks.

My licenses (3, Funny)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662450)

Will I need to buy more SCO licenses for this one chip? This could get expensive.

Software Licensing Costs? (3, Funny)

turgid (580780) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662454)

What are these? Is this something that afflicts Windows people still?

Re:Software Licensing Costs? (1, Troll)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662676)

Yeah, you know, the OS that is preferred 20 to 1 to Linux. ;)

Re:Software Licensing Costs? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662900)

Not in the server room.

Re:Software Licensing Costs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663022)

Not in the server room.

You're kidding right? Maybe in the "online" server room, where Linux has 2/3 of the market and Windows 1/3.

But when you take into account small, medium and large businesses' internal servers, Windows outnumbers Linux...in fact, UNIX probably outnumbers Linux.

Re:Software Licensing Costs? (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663606)

And by what means can one take this into account? How would one determine the marketshare of such servers?

Re:Software Licensing Costs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663456)

Lovely mini OS-dick-swinging argument.

Re:Software Licensing Costs? (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663460)

Yeah, it's "only" preferred 3:1 there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_market_share#Servers [wikipedia.org]

(Going by IDC numbers-- Netcraft only counts servers active on the web, most Windows servers are Active Directory, File Servers, Exchange Servers or Printer Servers and not on the web.)

But will it run... (1)

Shadowruni (929010) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662460)

Anything better? My biggest gripe with this Core War (yes I know, old school game fun as hell) is that almost nothing seems to really benefit. The only apps I know are SQL, some web servers, rendering, cubes, and code breaking/intense math. Beyond that, many things aren't embarassing parallel enough to make this matter.

The other part is that until we have better tools (or devs as many of the ones I know are REALLY dependent on Visual Studio and .NET languages doing the hard stuff for them. I know that with the advent of the newer proc archs ASM is damn near impossible, I don't think it's unreasonable for someone other than kernel or driver guys to understand the ramifications of multithreaded app design. I've been looking at what it'd take to consider each proc it's on VM and use transparent memory sharing (like VMWare does) to treat each proc like a system unto itself and then treat things more like a distributed computing problem.

My only issue is that it's NOT a distributed compute problem so maybe I'm approaching it incorrectly but this highlights my problem, not many are well trained and experienced in this type of dev.

Re:But will it run... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31662536)

Well, since AMD [goatkcd.com] is a third-world knock-off CPU manufacturer, it will run about as well as a nigger being dragged behind a car.

Re:But will it run... (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662556)

Virtualization is a huge market for these cpus as well.

Re:But will it run... (4, Informative)

McKing (1017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662612)

Think VM (VmWare/Xen/Solaris Zones) instead of parallel applications...Multi-core CPUs are great for server consolidation. We went from a row of 10 full racks of Sun gear down to 10 T2+ blades + a SAN over the last 18 months. Database / webserver / Java app server, you name it, the T2+ handles it all!

Re:But will it run... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663718)

VMware ESX licenses are specific to both the number of CPUs AND the number of total Cores. This will impact overall license costs (raising them) for ESX deployments if you aren't able to reduce the total number of Cores/CPUS. There must be a sweet spot for those licenses.

Re:But will it run... (3, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662752)

One of the coolest things about this stuff is that inside of one dual-processor workstation you can set up a whole datacenter worth of VMs, and model how the pieces interact without fiddling with racks and cables. You can build up a redundant database, fileserver or iSCSI server solution (or all three!) and see how it handles failover and failback. The simulated clients that apply stress can be VMs in the same box. You can even float a cloud of routers and see how they handle various BGP commands. Pretty neat stuff.

Re:But will it run... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663088)

once the computer is doing all those things to itself, what does it need you for?

Re:But will it run... (4, Interesting)

Bigjeff5 (1143585) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662810)

Since multi-threading is so hard to do right, most of what you are going to do is consolidation.

So instead of having 6 separate servers, you just shove buttloads of RAM in a single server and set up a SAN for your data storage, and move all 6 servers to one box. You can even split it up further than that - if you have a couple servers that need to be separate from each other, but don't really need a lot of processing power, you can put those on a single core apiece. So you could potentially consolidate up to 12 servers into one box with virtual servers. More than likely you'll only get 6 or 8 out of it, because dual cores do help a lot, but still there's the potential to turn two racks of servers into one server and a SAN.

You save on space, you save on energy, and you ultimately save on hardware (though SANs are expensive, so if you don't need the speed you could go to a standard NAS setup). To expand your data storage you just need to expand your SAN, so you can add servers and storage independently of each other. All of these are major up sides to going this route.

Going from a 60 server setup to a 10 server setup has a massive potential for savings.

Re:But will it run... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663074)

multicore it immediately gets most OS background tasks out of the way of your browser

and if you have foreground multitasking going on, like a music app or maybe a movie in the corner of the screen, plus a compile in one window or some other data-crunching app, you find yourself waiting noticeably less when you interact with anything.

but since you're the only computing device in the vicinity whose time has time-value, that is ultimately the goal.

throwing 2, 4, or even 6 cores at that is a win.

of course, it will be hard for a desktop user to care about 12 cores. the average person can only manage 7 tasks total in real-time, and that includes the things you're doing on your computer plus all the IRL stuff you're paying attention to. you'd have to hire an assistant to do extra stuff on your machine to make it pay. or virtualize yourself and have your virtual self dream up things to do for itself...

Anand's review (4, Informative)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662606)

Anandtech has an excellent review of the new chip. The AMD chip is compared against the latest Xeon. In some situations such as OLTP and ERP, the AMD offering lives down to it's name Mangy Cores [anandtech.com] . In HTP and data-mining, Anandtech gives the nod to AMD.

So choose depending on your needs.

Re:Anand's review (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663116)

...or wring your hands over the decision until Intel's dodecacore model drops, and solves the problem for you...

Oracle (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31662994)

Wont help oracle licensing costs .. in fact it will raise costs, unless you virtualize..

Advertisement (2, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663004)

Someone needs to put "Advertisement" at the top and bottom of these posts of PR copy.

Why are these companies charging more? (1)

PhrstBrn (751463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663292)

I really don't understand why these companies insist on changing from a Per-Socket to a Per-Core pricing scheme.

For years everything was single cores, and every 18 months the performance has doubled and the number of cores stayed the same. Yet licensing was still done per socket.

Now that the performance per-core is coming closer to a brick wall (per-core performance has gotten better over the years, but it's not doubling every 18 months anymore) the only way the chip makers can keep improving performance to pack more cores onto the die. How is the situation today different than it was 5 years ago when dual core processors took off? It reeks a lot of "dying-business-model-must-squeeze-every-penny-while-we-still-can".

Yay... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31663822)

...for Moore's Law.

AMD twists the issue (1)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 4 years ago | (#31663880)

No, AMD is not going to save software costs, on Oracle for instance, by using a 12 core processor when an 8-core Nehalem-EX processor outperforms the AMD at two-thirds the per core license cost.
This is AMD trying to get out in front of the issue that the overall throughput per core is much lower than Intel's current Westmere-EP 6-core. 2-socket or Nehalem-EX 8-core, 4/8+ socket cpus .
In virtually all per-core licensing scenarios (most of HPC and many big DB ( Oracle, DB2 ) and ERP apps) AMD Magny Cours is not competitive

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...