Beta
×

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!

Oracle Offers Custom Intel Chips and Unanticipated Costs

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the your-fries-come-with-lobster dept.

Oracle 97

jfruh (300774) writes "For some time, Intel has been offering custom-tweaked chips to big customers. While most of the companies that have taken them up on this offer, like Facebook and eBay, put the chips into servers meant for internal use, Oracle will now be selling systems running on custom Xeons directly to end users. Those customers need to be careful about how they configure those systems, though: in the new Oracle 12c, the in-memory database option, which costs $23,000 per processor, is turned on by default."

cancel ×

97 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

this post brought to you (-1, Flamebait)

SlashdotWanker (1476819) | about 2 months ago | (#47550679)

By Dell and HP. Is this like an anti-slashvertisement?

Re:this post brought to you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550827)

Fully agree. The two links cited in summary are totally unrelated to each other and the second link has nothing to do with the title of the story. The only commonality between the two is that both are anti-Oracle. Nice job Dell, HP, EMC.

Re:this post brought to you (1)

Timothy Hartman (2905293) | about 2 months ago | (#47551183)

Reading the article it seemed pretty pro Oracle in that they have a unique offering their competitors cannot get that is tailored to their database software. The idea that the processors can activate cores on their own doesn't seem to be an issue as the up charge is per processor. Maybe I'm ignorant and having multicore systems be treated as a multiprocessor system, but the person licensing should be fully aware when buying grossly overpriced hardware to run their grossly overpriced software what they are getting in to and will happily pay for the performance.

Re:this post brought to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550887)

Posted by timothy, go figure.

Too expensive. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550683)

Out of my budget. ;)

Sales flow chart. (4, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 months ago | (#47550695)

Here is a flow chart to decide whether to buy Oracle products:

<Do you enjoy being utterly fucked over?> Yes--> Buy Oracle. No--> Run for the hills.

I've been at two places which have been Oracle'd. It's like being pwn3d except you end up $10,000,000 poorer. You also end up with less dignity than the inevitable tebagging you might get in Halo.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550855)

I don't disagree with you, but I'll also add that there are some kinds of environments which need a huge DB like Oracle.

Because, let's face it, SQL server doesn't really scale up to the same level of performance, no matter what anybody tells you.

If you're big enough that nothing but Oracle will do, this is the cost of doing business.

If you believe SQL Server actually provides Enterprise class solutions ... well, you aren't very well informed. It simply doesn't handle stuff on the really big end of things.

Not saying that Oracle aren't greedy bastards who gouge their customers, but sometimes you really do need a bigger environment.

Re:Sales flow chart. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550963)

There are two RDBMS products [1] for the top end. One is Oracle, the other is DB/2. Neither is cheap.

Oracle is more tunable, DB/2 tends to "just work" for the most part. Of course, IBM can hand you a decent DB/2 stackin one package. Not cheap, but DB/2 running on a zSeries or a POWER7 is going to take some work to bring to its knees.

As for MS SQL, it is getting better. There are tasks where I'd never think of using it in the past where it can easily handle today.

[1]: We are meaning ones that have some ACID compliance. NoSQL has its uses and some DB makers report "ACID compliance over time"... whatever that means.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 months ago | (#47551011)

DB/2? What about PostgreSQL?

Re:Sales flow chart. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551459)

DB/2? What about PostgreSQL?

Because PostgreSQL doesn't support shared-storage, active-active clusters. PostgreSQL "clusters" use replication to provide a warm standby using separate storage.

So you need twice the (high-speed) disk storage for a PostgreSQL solution.

That's just the database. Now you need to add clustering/HA to that, with pgpool. And pgpool is a turd. Yeah, it's better than NO standby/cluster. But set up a test PostgreSQL/pgpool cluster and really start beating on it - pull some plugs, shut down hardware, "kill -9" some database and/or pgpool processes. And watch pgpool piss all over itself.

In short, if you want a true clustered database solution, it's Oracle or DB2.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 2 months ago | (#47551877)

What about MySQL/MariaDB? Facebook doesn't even need a full time person for their production MySQL database cluster. It doesn't use shared storage, but if a shared storage system handles your workload, you're not all that big anymore.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552075)

Not everyone is happy with eventual consistency though...

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47555375)

Facebook also doesn't care about integrity. if someones post in the US takes an hour before people in the UK see it, whatever. people who spend money on Oracle et al do care.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552277)

I see you haven't experienced Oracle RAC, or you wouldn't be touting Oracle as a solution.

Re: Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552633)

That's where the IBM POWER solution is ONE machine, with common software even if it's multiple pieces, where the Oracle solution is several independent moving pieces trying really hard to work together.

I'm surprised Oracle hasn't responded with their own "blade" chassis with custom server slots for each of their interlocking hardware/software products... So each type of node has the specfic hardware IO it needs to be really really fast and stable.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47555003)

"So you need twice the (high-speed) disk storage for a PostgreSQL solution."

Is that more or less than the difference in software and support costs?

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47560719)

Shared-storage is shared failure. A SAN firmware bug can wipe out your data (it has a common story that I hear). The database, operating system, drivers, or hardware can corrupt your one and only highly available copy of that data and a fast failover is not going to help you. Then, you spend hours, if you are lucky, restoring from backups. If you are using shared storage, unshare it and use proper replication in a "shared nothing" setup. Pay for the disks. The risk is not worth your data or availability.

Active-active clusters only help you scale by adding an additional 80% capacity over a single server. If you need that, your application design is messed up and should be worked on to scale it properly.

Use PgBouncer if you are not using Java. pgpool-II has more features and requires more in terms of configuration and application design. If you are using Java, most JDBC pool providers can give you the failover behavior that you need. Use pools on the application server, not on the database or a dedicated pool server. Otherwise, you loose performance on TCP connection setup.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 months ago | (#47550975)

How does PostGreSQL compare?

Re:Sales flow chart. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551155)

How does PostGreSQL compare? Pretty well. I used to be an Oracle DBA (between Oracle 6 and 10g) but now much prefer Postgres. At the very high end of things, Oracle may well perform better. But Postgres is much better to work with, has excellent support organisations (unlike Oracle who will charge you a fortune to mostly just waste your time), is very feature-rich, and is generally a pleasure to use. If you have such data and transaction volumes that Postgres simple won't cut it, you should probably question whether Relational is the right paradigm.

Give Postgres a try, it's pretty easy to get started. And if anyone tells you MySQL is faster, ignore them until they prove it using your application and realistic transaction volumes.

Frankly I wouldn't touch Oracle with someone else's 10 foot pole.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | about 2 months ago | (#47554299)

Give Postgres a try, it's pretty easy to get started. And if anyone tells you MySQL is faster, ignore them until they prove it using your application and realistic transaction volumes.

While I agree with you about Oracle, you are dead wrong on MySQL. MySQL(well, increasingly MariaDB) is extensively used at some of the highest trafficked sites on the internet(Google and Facebook to name a few). It is more than capable of handling large transaction volumes.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

Archibald Buttle (536586) | about 2 months ago | (#47555705)

In my experience MySQL can indeed handle large transaction volumes, but only with relatively simple queries.

Throw some complex joins in there across multiple tables and the performance plummets. Run multiple concurrent similar queries and you can find yourself getting exponentially worse performance.

PostgreSQL on the other hand may not have quite the same level of raw performance on simple queries as MySQL, but it tends to cope much better with more complex things.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551181)

How does PostGreSQL compare?

Poorly, I'm afraid, from a pure performance point of view. Think for instance heavy multi-join queries on a star schema where PG can't implement various optimization algorithms because PATENTS. And that's not even going into really enterprise-oriented optimizations, tools, support and so on.[*] PG is a truly awesome db, but to make the best of it you need to understand its strengths and limitations, as with everything.

[*] another part of the problem is stupid company policies concerning data partitioning and access. And inertia. You start with a relatively modest sized warehouse, usually not planned for scaling up in unexpected ways, and when it inevitably baloons to something truly monstruous companies will rather put up with queries taking hours to process rather than redesign the whole mess into something manageable. With Oracle and DB2 you can lessen the pain to some extent (but not really remove it) by throwing more money at the problem.

Re:Sales flow chart. (4, Informative)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 2 months ago | (#47551807)

How does PostGreSQL compare?

I work at a large government department with stupidly large scientific datasets being thrown in and out of databases and we're migrating as fast as we can from Oracle to Postgres. The only thing we can't really shake is bloody Oracle financials and a few crufted old Java apps that we don't have the code to rewrite.

Postgres handles beautifully, and on some things even better although on some nasty multi-join type things Oracle will still beat it.

But it doesn't even matter because we can just throw more hardware at it infinitely cheaper than the extortion racket that Oracle pricing represents.

MariaDB is surprisingly competent too and in fact even has a surprisingly complete GIS implementation (Although PostGIS is the gold standard as far as we are concerned). Just avoid the Oracle branded one (MySQL), its not as well tuned, doesn't play nice with packaging systems and is generally posessed of the Oracle odour.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

Finite9 (757961) | about 2 months ago | (#47564095)

I've been working as an Oracle DBA in one of the global top 5 IT services companies (and with that said, I only mean that we have a lot of other companies that we host and manage, and im not implying that im a hot shot DBA) for 12 years. Hosting 150 production databases with many diverse setups is a joy to experience. I've worked in both dev and production teams. I've never worked with any other DB, but im a Linux fanboi and would love to get to grips with postgresql as it fits more in line with my ethics than Oracle does.

Long disclaimer aside; I crave comparisons such as this, but every single time I realise that they are all just anecdotes, and every dba on the planet has their own anecdote. It's hard to find comparisons on the Internet from people that are actually qualified to give such comparisons. The closest we can get is face-offs with the likes of Tom Kyte or Jonathan Lewis against similarly experienced MySQL/Postgresql experts. Many Oracle DBA's are also very arrogant, in my opinion, so these anecdotes tend to fly fast.

my experience is that Oracle is extremely expensive, but i've never dealt with paying that money so i've no appreciation of just how bad it can get. Oracle has some technologies like RAC, Data Guard, partitioning and replication, that from what I can gather have no real competition from other vendors, because they are very stable, fast and feature rich in comparison, which I can attest to. Sure, many other DB's have some implementation of these features, but they are not comparable.

Oracle is very configurable, but also very inconsistent in the syntax for configuration, and everything they provide seems to have followed an organic growth method, rather than an overall encompassing design. A lot of technologies are designed by building on how the underlying engine works. For instance, RAC is constrained by the design of the SGA, rightly or wrongly. DG is constrained by the design of redo log generation. From the very tiny exposure i've had to Postgresql, their design philosophy seems to follow the UNIX/Linux philosophy, and I can imagine that if Oracle had followed suit, then some features in oracle may well have been much more efficient and less complex.

I love working with Oracle DB but then again, im a bit of an elitist, so it appeals to me. I do however get the feeling that it could be a hell of a lot less complex and still fulfill the same goals. And I know for a fact that many Oracle customers don't really need that level of complexity. They could have functioned just fine on any other DB motor, especially the ones that don't use licensable features of oracle, but marketing has lead many to believe it's the only choice if your serious about your data.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47553473)

No way of HA correctly. Not talking about active-active clusters or even any way of replication.
That's a no-no for any business. No always on? no cookies

Re:Sales flow chart. (2)

FlyingGuy (989135) | about 2 months ago | (#47554921)

PostGres compares ok on a lot of workloads, but when the rubber really hits the road that is when it starts to fall apart.

They must fix the TXID ID problem. It will now at least shut down when it is getting close to rolling over, but the vacuum process will just kill your performance in very high transaction workloads. Not that Oracle would not have the same problem if they were using a 32 bit number for the value, but with the size of the ID Oracle uses this won't happen for ~ 140 years.

Immovability... PostGres gets some great performance but it does so at the cost of the data files being so close to the metal that you can't move them to another host that is not exactly the same as it is moving from. If that is not true you have to do an SQLDUMP of the data. That is a fairly fatal flaw in my opinion.

So yes you can use PG in place of Oracle, to a point, but after that point it just does not perform as required.

I migrated a PG DB to Oracle 11g EE and it runs quite smoothly. The application would quickly overwhelm PG without some serious changes to the PG code.

Re: Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551395)

Yeah, if you have more load than Wikipedia you might need oracle...

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 2 months ago | (#47551655)

How big is big enough that nothing but Oracle will do? Facebook is on MySQL, Wikipedia is on MariaDB and Google is using Bigtable.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552341)

They don't run their back office corporate applications (HCM, CRM, ERP) on PostgreSQL or MySQL, and there is a reason.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552705)

Every place I've worked has, with very little issue. Every place also had horror stories about how poorly the old Oracle db worked, and listed multitudes of reasons why they migrated away first chance they got.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

Carnildo (712617) | about 2 months ago | (#47554511)

How big is big enough that nothing but Oracle will do? Facebook is on MySQL, Wikipedia is on MariaDB and Google is using Bigtable.

It's more the nature and size of access rather than the sheer volume of data. Facebook and Wikipedia both act on small portions of the overall dataset, Wikipedia additionally is a read-mostly workload, and Google's access patterns aren't suitable for a relational database.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552599)

Hell, MariaDB or Postgres are more performant than SQL server in non-idiot hands. There is literally no reason to use SQL server unless you have been railroaded into a pure Windows shop, which is pretty much the beginning of the end for any company.

Re:Sales flow chart. (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 months ago | (#47555233)

I don't disagree with you, but I'll also add that there are some kinds of environments which need a huge DB like Oracle.

Because, let's face it, SQL server doesn't really scale up to the same level of performance, no matter what anybody tells you.

If you're big enough that nothing but Oracle will do, this is the cost of doing business.

If you believe SQL Server actually provides Enterprise class solutions ... well, you aren't very well informed. It simply doesn't handle stuff on the really big end of things.

Not saying that Oracle aren't greedy bastards who gouge their customers, but sometimes you really do need a bigger environment.

So doesn't Oracle's SPARC/Solaris line already cover this?

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550909)

Our VP bent over for IBM. It ended up costing several times your $10M, and it never worked.

Sales flow chart. (1)

plcurechax (247883) | about 2 months ago | (#47551145)

Anyone who buys solutions deserved to be parted with their money.

Re:Sales flow chart. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551611)

Because rolling your own database is the best solution.

And Free software is has the same level of scalability and transaction management as proprietary solutions.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47610469)

Because rolling your own database is the best solution.

And Free software is has the same level of scalability and transaction management as proprietary solutions.

A a database system (RDMS or not) such as Oracle DB is a product, you can compare it to competing vendor's products (IBM's DB2 and anyone else left whom Oracle hasn't already bought).

While solutions are nebulous farces of disastrous over-spending projects, where the consultants and their firms write their own requirements and/or contracts (or in other words, what amounts to a blank check). And are a godsend to incompetent IT managers or dead-locked management by committee IT departments everywhere.

So why did Oracle buy the companies behind Berkeley DB (Sleepycat Software) and MySQL (MySQL AB)? Because their products lacked transaction management and scalability? I don't think Berkeley DB claims transactional support, I think it does offer scalability, while MySQL has widely demonstrated both. Or did you think gdbm [gnu.org.ua] and Firebird [firebirdsql.org] are the only non-proprietorial database system out there?

Re:Sales flow chart. (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47551171)

Here is a flow chart to decide whether to buy Oracle products:

<Do you enjoy being utterly fucked over?> Yes--> Buy Oracle. No--> Run for the hills.

I've been at two places which have been Oracle'd. It's like being pwn3d except you end up $10,000,000 poorer. You also end up with less dignity than the inevitable tebagging you might get in Halo.

I'd just like to confirm... the OP is not exagerating at all here. Oracle is today, what Microsoft was 10yrs ago.
They're big.
Their customers are currently trapped.
Oracles Management think that this situation will last forever and can't imagine a time when customers would move to something else.
They are using that power in such a drastic and barbaric way that, as painful as it may be, there's just no way they are going to continue using them in the future.

In 10yrs we'll all have moved on, and Oracle Execs will be scratching their heads wondering what happened to the gravy train. Just like MSFT is doing now.

Re:Sales flow chart. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551505)

You sound like you have a story. Can we hear the story?

$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550707)

$23k is nothing but pennies to an oracle shop.

Posting anon as I'm a unix sysadmin in an oracle shop.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

WhoBeI (3642741) | about 2 months ago | (#47550773)

Eh... Why does that mean you need to post anonymously? Makes no sense to me...

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550789)

gumbment contractor :P

Oracle lives to audit. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551661)

Any perceived slight against them by a customer invites an audit of epic proportions.

My organization just wrote them a 7 figure check due to some sprawl in our environment that wasn't properly handled.

We did it proactively, through a partner, and held off the 8 figure check we might have had to write.

I'm not that guy, but I know his world.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 2 months ago | (#47550807)

So I used to be a DBA + sysadmin at an Oracle shop ~10 years ago.

Someone even managed to talk Oracle into selling us a site license for *everything* for $1mil/year. (a steep education discount; this was a university).

Unfortunately, they couldn't get the various schools and departments to agree to pool their money to buy the site license, so instead we paid more for restrictive licenses and were prone to auditing. The only reason I saw for not buying into the site license was if departments were planning on jumping ship entirely. (and as we were using Oracle Financials, and the system for class registration was tightly bound to Oracle, I have no idea why it was such an issue ... unless there were people individually getting kickbacks who would now be cut off)

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551069)

You should have used GNU/Linux and PostgreSQL. You would have save so much.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (3, Interesting)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 months ago | (#47551551)

It wasn't so much a kickback, as an offer of a highly paid, no show job at Oracle after the contract closes.

At least that's what I've personally witnessed.

The company involved was under rate base, so they added 15% and passed it on to the electric ratepayers.

That said, Oracle financials? At least in the case above it was the DB. Everything else Oracle sells has _negative_ utility. You could get it done faster and more accurately with a yellow pad and slide rule.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

Shoten (260439) | about 2 months ago | (#47550811)

$23k is nothing but pennies to an oracle shop.

Posting anon as I'm a unix sysadmin in an oracle shop.

Yes, but after becoming an Oracle shop, you don't have any pennies left to spend. And $23K per processor isn't really pennies to anyone. If you're spending the big bucks already, you have tons of processors. If you aren't, then it's massive.

But the real problem here is that it's done by default, regardless of if it's needed at all. So a client ends up spending that money, very likely on something they don't need and don't see any benefit from. Let's assume they have only two machines running Oracle, in high availability mode each running dual processors. At $23K per processor, that's just shy of $100,000 (and if tax is included, it will be over that). What can a company do with $100,000? Quite a lot. Especially if they're small enough that all they need is one database instance. On the other hand...if you take that $100,000 out of their budget, that would result in them having to cut costs elsewhere...perhaps by firing the guy who didn't catch that line item on the bill of materials from Oracle in the first place?

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 months ago | (#47551581)

Good thing 'the guy' has a lucrative offer from Oracle...but in your case, unlikely. $100,000 isn't a lot of money to Oracle sales. Not enough for them to buy the purchasing agent.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

jbo5112 (154963) | about 2 months ago | (#47551993)

I should point out that on multicore x86 machines Oracle counts 1 processor license needed per 2 processing cores. You're probably looking at 4-6+ CPU licenses for a dual processor system.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 2 months ago | (#47550843)

FTFA:

The 8895 is used in the Exadata Database Machine X4-8,an 8-processor rack system with up to 12 TB of system memory 672 terabytes of disk, 44 terabytes of high-performance PCI Flash, 240 database CPU cores, and 168 CPU cores in storage to accelerate data-intensive SQL.

The article implies it would be at least 8 processors (I hope they don't charge by CPU or CPU core). Anyway, it's at least $200k. But as you say, an Oracle shop is already in way deeper than that.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551487)

(I hope they don't charge by CPU or CPU core)

Given that this is Oracle we're talking about here, I would be surprised if it wasn't per-CPU core.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552031)

Oracle defines an x86 CPU as 2 processing cores on a multicore machine. They add up REALLY quickly.

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 2 months ago | (#47551503)

$23k/core pricing is stupid greedy. Cores are not getting much faster and therefore chip companies are adding more cores to increase performance. Oracle DB pricing should be constant per socket regardless of the number of cores and whether the CPU is implemented as a multichip module or single chip.

For a AMD/Intel multi-core Linux boxes
--------
it can be a single quad-core CPU box (4x0.5=2 sockets -- but, paying twice the processor license - because it is now 2 sockets) or
it can be a 2 dual-core CPU (2X2x0.5=2 sockets -- but, paying twice the processor license) or
it can be a single dual-core CPU box (2x0.5=1 -- paying only a single processor license)

https://community.oracle.com/t... [oracle.com]

Re:$23k isn't crap to an oracle shop... (1)

sjames (1099) | about 2 months ago | (#47551811)

Posting anon as I'm a unix sysadmin in an oracle shop.

We'll try not to hold that against you :-)

23k or.. (1)

Cederic (9623) | about 2 months ago | (#47550737)

The whole point of going in-memory inside the main 12c database is that sometimes the alternative to the $23k (list price; negotiate 60-90% off that) is buying a new CPU and licensing the whole database ( + options + OS + etc -> far far more than $23k) on that.

So although normally I bemoan Oracle's exceedingly unfriendly licensing model on this occasion it's not terribly surprising.

Re:23k or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550819)

..list price; negotiate 60-90% off that...

Until its time to to renew your contract.

Re:23k or.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47554465)

just cos no-one's mentioned it, you do also have the option of using Standard Edition (2 *sockets* limit, $17.5k per) or named-user licensing.

Our discount is 80+% ... it seems to get bigger with your account size.

AC DBA ;)

We are talking about Oracle customers (4, Insightful)

Ecuador (740021) | about 2 months ago | (#47550739)

If they really did mind about a $23k option enabled by default on each CPU, they would not be Oracle customers, would they?

Re:We are talking about Oracle customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552393)

If they really did mind about a $23k option enabled by default on each CPU, they would not be Oracle customers, would they?

But they'll cheerfully outsource the software developed to run on it to the cheapest offshore bidder they can find.

Re:We are talking about Oracle customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552803)

Yes, because Oracle is always guaranteed to deliver. I'll be sure to choose them next time I want my healthcare portal implemented.

Is that even a contract? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 2 months ago | (#47550745)

I can only assume that 'failed to uncheck the checkbox' is exactly the sort of mutual agreement that contract law enjoys talking about the importance of, if not actually acting on it...

Expect this shit from Oracle (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550753)

This is what I'd expect from Oracle's "Well, how much ya got?" mafia-style pricing.

Just turn a copy of your books to your sales contact Vinnie 'flat table' Malone and he'll let you know how much of your gross will be required to keep your data safe.

(Such a nice data warehouse you have there. It would be terrible if something.. Unfortunate would happen to it)

So this is how you get Oracle 12 to work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550851)

So you need a special chip? Oracle 12 doesn't work on off-the-shelf Haswell chips? I tried Oracle 12 on Linux and never got it to work. I had so many problems I gave up and went back to Oracle 11. Even for Oracle, which is difficult to install and harder to get working, Oracle 12 was a nightmare. I guess it is just not ready for production use on Linux. I don't know. I did not have time to figure it out.

I love the new instruction set! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550883)

Especially that undocumented "NSA FETCH" instruction. I wonder what it does...

Is it just me ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550893)

Or does the fact that they're offering custom processors have absolutely nothing to do with 12c licensing ? Why are these in the same story ?

Re:Is it just me ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47550989)

Seems like a friendly warning to me. Similarly I would expect a story about Oracle Java to warn people about the checkbox that installs the Ask Toolbar by default.

Re:Is it just me ? (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 2 months ago | (#47551025)

The link appears to be made in TFA (the first one):

Intel's new Xeon E7-8895 v2 processor is pretty much identical to the top-of-the-line E7-8890 v2, except it has the ability to put its cores into ultra-low power states and then bring them back up as needed, according to Intel.

Intel introduced the 8890 v2 model this past February. It is the absolute top of the Xeon line, the only one with RAS capabilities and other high-end functions found in the Itanium and other RISC processors. The 8890 has 15 cores running at 2.8 GHz and more importantly, a massive 37.5 MB of cache per core for high performance analytics or in-memory databases.

So the chip is great for things like in-memory databases and it's from Oracle. So the warning about that combination might be a bit over-the-top but not totally out of the blue.

So, what does the in-memory database option do? (5, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 months ago | (#47550899)

This being slashdot, it would be nice to have the article on "gotcha" licensing accompanied by at least as much information what it actually is, and when it would be worth paying for. (And not just some snarky comments about how cheaper databases already have in-memory tables, unless that's really all it is!)

So, what does the in-memory database option do? (0)

plcurechax (247883) | about 2 months ago | (#47551195)

In the dark days of computing history before AJAX was even conceived and Mad Men were still crazies, "in-memory databases" meant that the database INDEX was in RAM (ideally if you DB admin was worth their salary), but then people wanted to pretend their were the next Google, famous for their massive search index in the pentabytes of storage, so hipsters started the NoSQL fad to be awkward like middle-aged men in skinny jeans as a vain attempt to self-proclaim their importance.

Now Oracle is making money by selling RDBM to organizations that spent more money and time on hookers and coke than doing real IT management. The Old is New, yet again.

Rinse, Lather, Repeat.

So, what does the in-memory database option do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551391)

It's Oracle... if you have to ask the price, you can't afford them.

Re:So, what does the in-memory database option do? (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 2 months ago | (#47554043)

In-memory tables allow the indexes of database tables to reside in memory to speed up transactional updates. These in-memory indexes are typically hashed for unique versioning so queries can spread throughout all of the processors in a computer, which presents the problem of the table de-syncing as each processor/core makes a change.

So, this Xeon model has special instruction set that helps keep the in-memory index synced across all cores in the server. Here is an Intel brief describing the technology and it's use:

https://software.intel.com/sit... [intel.com]

Bashing Oracle is fun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551137)

And it's easy to do. But, it's also easy to forget (or to ignore) that when it comes to running large databases there's very little choice in that arena. Software like MariaDB, Postres, Cassandra, etc just can't do what Oracle Database server is capable of doing. Because of that Oracle charges as much as they do because they can.

Besides, companies and organisations that need what Oracle provides can typically afford it.

I'm likely pissing into the wind with this comment, and I'll probably be labeled a shill, but that's just how it is.

Re:Bashing Oracle is fun... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552719)

Can Oracle even scale to handle loads like Facebook (MySQL and HBase), Wikipedia (MariaDB) and Google (Bigtable)? The Exadata machine listed in the article only scales to 672 TB of disk space, so it's definitely WAY out of question for the data mining workloads of Facebook (300+ PB) or their photo & video storage (100+ PB).

Only 23,000? (3, Insightful)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 2 months ago | (#47551157)

This is like pennies to someone that can afford to run Oracle on custom hardware. Why is this even newsworthy?

Re:Only 23,000? (4, Interesting)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 2 months ago | (#47551305)

I was really surprised that Oracle did not build database optimization right into the M series SPARC chipset like SUN did for the T series and Java.

DB/2 on IBM hardware definitely gets a boost from software/hardware integration.

Re:Only 23,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551631)

Oracle, doing things that are logical and makes sense?
What are you, mad? Don't talk of such silly things.

Re:Only 23,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47554425)

well there is DISM (sparc) and flash-cache (sparc, OEL) which are only on Oracle's platforms.

Re:Only 23,000? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551309)

Because the Republican that runs the Oracle scam is using his monopoly position to screw us over. He is working very hard to destroy the economy which makes this news. Last Sept, Microsoft NBC ran a great story about just how bad of a person Ellis is. We should all make sure everyone knows what kind of person he is. It is our duty.

That's EllisON and he's a top democrat donor (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 2 months ago | (#47551583)

His name US Ellison, not Ellis. He's one of the top money men for the democrat party. Look it up.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind... [opensecrets.org]

Re:That's EllisON and he's a top democrat donor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552459)

His name US Ellison, not Ellis. He's one of the top money men for the democrat party. Look it up.

http://www.opensecrets.org/ind... [opensecrets.org]

What is this "democrat party?" Is it like the "republic party"?

Cores vs speed changes (1)

sstamps (39313) | about 2 months ago | (#47551225)

So, basically, the "tuning" is just giving them a way to trade active cores for speed, changing on-the-fly without restarting. More cores active, slower speed each. Less cores active, faster speed each.

Kinda nifty, I think. Not sure why it should be limited only to Oracle, though. Seems like a performance idea with broad appeal and utility.

Re:Cores vs speed changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551571)

That sounds like nothing more than a Xeon version of Turbo Boost [wikipedia.org] . You can run your Core i7-920XM at 2.26 GHz with 4 cores, 3.06 GHz with 2 cores, or 3.20 GHz with 1 core. This technology has been around for over four years, so it's not clear what's so special about this.

dom

Re:Cores vs speed changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552611)

Of course, Xeons have had turbo boost this whole time so it might be something more to do with explicit application or OS control, similarly to the dynamic threading of the T5 cores.

Re:Cores vs speed changes (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 months ago | (#47552417)

So, basically, the "tuning" is just giving them a way to trade active cores for speed, changing on-the-fly without restarting. More cores active, slower speed each. Less cores active, faster speed each.

Kinda nifty, I think. Not sure why it should be limited only to Oracle, though. Seems like a performance idea with broad appeal and utility.

From where I sit, I can't tell what makes it ultimately different than "BLU" for DB/2. Although I don't have a whole lot of call to do column-level in-memory work anyway.

How many times for the same story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551249)

What has happened to the level of intellect on slashdot?

Nearly every "Story" (i.e. shit advertisement) is a rehash of a previous story, even worse the retards that submit these are so stupid they nearly always mis-understand or mis-quote the original issue.

Has the "look at me syndrome" on slashdot really deteriorated this far?

In-Memory is not "turned on by default"! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551521)

Seriously, does anyone check their facts any more? By default it is turned off. You have to allocate some memory to the In-Memory Column Store by setting the INMEMORY_SIZE parameter and restarting the database. This is not going to happen by accident.

The parameter that is being discussed (INMEMORY_QUERY) which is enabled by default does nothing if no memory is allocated. You only get charged for the option if you turn it on by allocating the memory. This INMEMORY_QUERY parameter is not part of that issue.

Someone has taken something out of context and run with it. Now it has taken on a life of its own. Quality journalism!

Re:In-Memory is not "turned on by default"! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47551559)

nice to see a post from a non-imbecile

unfortunately the truth will probably get modded -1 troll

Re:In-Memory is not "turned on by default"! (1)

Tharkkun (2605613) | about 2 months ago | (#47551925)

Seriously, does anyone check their facts any more? By default it is turned off. You have to allocate some memory to the In-Memory Column Store by setting the INMEMORY_SIZE parameter and restarting the database. This is not going to happen by accident.

The parameter that is being discussed (INMEMORY_QUERY) which is enabled by default does nothing if no memory is allocated. You only get charged for the option if you turn it on by allocating the memory. This INMEMORY_QUERY parameter is not part of that issue.

Someone has taken something out of context and run with it. Now it has taken on a life of its own. Quality journalism!

Not to mention most people who spending the amount of money required for a custom built solution will already know the licensing requirements. There won't some magical surprise you owe us another $100k because you have 4 processors instead of 1. It sounds more like the OP can't read.

MySQL In-Memory Option is Free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47552109)

Wow..

MySQL/MariaDB and PostgreSQL rules!

Re:MySQL In-Memory Option is Free! (1)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | about 2 months ago | (#47552483)

As ORacle controls MySQL, it might be free but for how long eh?
worth thinking about.

Re:MySQL In-Memory Option is Free! (1)

greatpatton (1242300) | about 2 months ago | (#47555833)

Who cares multiple fork exist today and will continue the job even if Oracle pull the plug.

no thanks. Better, cheaper and far more flexible (1)

samantha (68231) | about 2 months ago | (#47553635)

Oracle's pricing is predatory nonsense. Anyone worth their salt has moved to MySQL, postgresql and most importantly NoSQL databases. Only old school IT is likely to put up with 23K per processor in today's multicore and highly distributed environment. And the last time I worked with Oracle RDBMS it still had a large number of the same warts I hated in their product way back in the 80s.

Just say NO!

I'm so sick of Oracle... (1)

Elminster Aumar (2668365) | about 2 months ago | (#47553831)

Our University uses it... Biggest money pit we have.

Re:I'm so sick of Oracle... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47564101)

wait til you have SAP running...

How to Save $23,000+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563619)

export PGDATA=/dev/shm/pg_data
mkdir $PGDATA
initdb -U postgres -D $PGDATA
nohup postgres -D "$PGDATA" > "$PGDATA"/server.log 2>&1 /dev/null &

Re:How to Save $23,000+ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47563635)

Quotes got messed up. Correct command line at:
http://pastebin.com/ehnXeb9V

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?