IBM to create 24-core Power chip to let customers exploit Oracle database license
- Reference: 1671064448
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/12/15/new_ibm_power_cpu_for_oracle/
- Source link:
A [1]hardware announcement dated December 13 revealed the chip in the following "statement of general direction" about Big Blue's [2]Power S1014 technology-based server:
IBM intends to announce a high-density 24-core processor for the IBM Power S1014 system (MTM 9105-41B) to address application environments utilizing an Oracle Database with the Standard Edition 2 (SE2) licensing model. It intends to combine a robust compute throughput with the superior reliability and availability features of the IBM Power platform while complying with Oracle Database SE2 licensing guidelines.
The Register asked IBM to share details of the planned CPU, and why it feels the need to make one that complies with the SE2 license. The IT giant has not responded, though Oracle's [3]description of the SE2 licensing model goes a long way toward explaining why Big Blue will build a processor for it. Oracle's blurb states:
Oracle Database SE2 can be licensed on servers with a maximum of 2 sockets. However, the core counts per 2-socket server can increase over time without impacting customer license obligation. With Oracle Database SE2, customer license costs remain the same regardless of the number of cores in the socket.
The Power S1014 is a single-socket 4U device, which IBM offers with processor modules boasting four or eight Power10 cores.
The jump to 24 cores will therefore represent a significant capacity boost for Oracle-on-Power users who opt for a mere single-core server, without requiring them to pay more for Big Red's database.
[4]Oracle clouds never go down, says Oracle's Larry Ellison
[5]IBM so confident in supply chain, it's frozen storage prices and has freebies for late shipments
[6]IBM: Hey Joe, we make chips, too. How about some of 'em subsidies?
[7]IBM adds iTaaS to System I, Power 10 server bundle
IBM's decision recalls Lenovo's 2019 release of the ThinkSystem SR655 server – a machine which filled its sole CPU socket with a 64-core AMD Epyc 7002. Lenovo promoted the manycore machine as a fine way to run plenty of VMs under VMware's server virtualization offerings at a time when Virtzilla licensed its wares per socket and few server-grade microprocessors could match the Epyc family's core count. Buyers liked that idea because a 64-core chip is, on paper, capable of handling more guests than lesser processors.
VMware did not like that idea as much and quickly [8]changed its licenses so that CPUs with over 32 cores counted as an extra socket for licensing purposes.
The difference in this case is that Oracle's SE2 license allows for increased core counts without increased charges. VMware's licenses did not when Lenovo made its Epyc move.
[9]
But Big Red is infamously fond of ensuring it maximizes revenue from customers. As the Power S1014 did not have a 24-core option at launch, it could well decide that tripling core count is a more generous interpretation of the SE2 license than intended, and give it a tweak.
[10]
If IBM responds to our request for more detail on the promised silicon we will update this story. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_ca/5/877/ENUSZG22-0185/index.html
[2] https://www.ibm.com/common/ssi/ShowDoc.wss?docURL=/common/ssi/rep_sm/4/872/ENUS9105-_h04/index.html&lang=en&request_locale=en
[3] https://www.oracle.com/database/technologies/standard-edition-2-faq.html
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2022/12/13/oracle_clouds_never_go_down/
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/09/ibm_storage_supply_chain/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/10/06/ibm_biden_chips/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2022/09/06/ibm_power_i_opex_bundle/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/02/04/vmware/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y5qp8gs1ILMV-xIhn1XdCwAAAAU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[10] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y5qp8gs1ILMV-xIhn1XdCwAAAAU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: For now...
Kind of surprised they haven't already. I moved a company from Oracle EE to Oracle SE back in about 2008 for exactly this reason(did so as a result of the company failing their 2nd Oracle audit, after ignoring my advice to make this change after failing the first Oracle audit which they were caught for running Oracle EE when they only had a license for Oracle SE One, not even SE, SE ONE). I remember buying our servers for Oracle EE I opted for the fastest dual core processors, by the time we switched to SE quad core had come out so I changed them to single socket quad core. Even encountered a compatibility issue on our early DL380G5s when upgrading to quad core they didn't work without a motherboard replacement, HP later realized this and updated their docs. I don't think they charged us for the replacement since they told us it would work when we ordered the new parts, and it was their staff doing the hardware change. I remember AMD talking shit about Intel's quad core chips not being true quad core but a pair of dual core chips(early version of "chiplet" maybe?).
Also remembering having to "school" Oracle's own auditors regarding Oracle SE licensing specifically regarding the unlimited cores per socket which they didn't believe until they looked it up themselves and their hearts sank when they realized they could not do per core licensing on that.
Back then you could run Oracle Enterprise Manager with the performance tools(which were great IMO) on Oracle SE, even though technically you could not from a licensing standpoint(can only use it on Oracle EE). If they ever audited again I could easily uninstall OEM with a simple command(which I had to do regularly for various reasons on test systems). Newer versions of Oracle made this trick impossible(at least for me). Oracle did not audit again before the company shut down. Note: I am not a DBA but sometimes I fake it in my day job.
Also did the same for some of our VMware hosts, VMware at the time required purchasing licensing in pairs of sockets, and they said they did not support single cpu systems. Though I assumed at the time that really meant single socket single core.
Then I combined the two, at least in a couple of cases, Oracle and Vmware on top of a single socket DL380G5 with a quad core CPU and I don't remember how much memory or disk, some of the systems were connected to my first 3PAR, a tiny E200. Probably totally unsupported by anyone officially, Oracle's policy at the time is you had to reproduce the issue on a supported system. But I don't recall ever having to open a support case with either company while I was there, at least not on the ones running on VMware, did have some support cases for production which ran on bare metal.
At the time Oracle SE was max 2 sockets per system(no core restrictions) and max 4 sockets in a RAC. Haven't looked at their model since but it sounds like it's probably the same today.
LJE speed test
There's fast and there's, "Oops, revenue impact ahead; time to change the licensing rules" fast.
Obvious error
"running Oracle's database in a cost-effective fashion."
what about EPYC?
Is SE2 PPC specific? There are 96 core EPYCs now available, so if indeed the core count is all that's needed, then a). x86_64 sounds like a better option and b). the vastly increased core counts shouldn't bring the ire of Larry
For now...
There is a lot of licence fees at state here. I think that Oracle will not tolerate this for long and will change the licencing rules for sure.