Join / Log in
No. Full capacity licensing requires the customer to only acquire PVUs for the 8 activated cores in this situation. As more processors are activated, the customer needs to acquire additional software license entitlements. Sub-capacity will only apply if the customer sets up partitions that have less than 8 active processor cores available. See the next FAQ below for more information on activated processor cores.
No. IBM only requires licenses for activated processor cores. Some servers may be delivered with one or more processor cores deactivated, or turned off, to allow for future system growth. For instance, a system may ship with 8 physical processor cores where only 6 have been activated. This would allow the customer to have the additional 2 processor cores turned on in the future as their workload requirements grow. For software that is licensed on a per core basis, this server only contains 6 activated processor cores. Clients would only be required to obtain software licenses for all activated processor cores available for use on the server, so in this example, licenses are not required for the remaining 2 cores until they are activated.
Activated processor cores are physical processor cores that are available for use in a server. They include processor cores:
In summary, additional licenses are required at the time any additional processor cores are activated.So the question arises: If we lease a 8-core server (Xeon or AMD EPYC) with 2 cores disabled in the BIOS (or by any other means), will we be OK in terms of the license agreement?Thanks in advance,
Thank you for the reply to this discussion!
I am just coming up to speed on IDS 14.10.x. Most of our customers are currently running 12.10.x. I am waiting until we can fully test my company's software with 14.10 before we implement it at on any production systems.
Are you saying that IBM has made allowances in IDS 14.10.x to limit the number of physical cores or the number of virtual cores used by the instance?
Thank you. That is great news!
Now for the follow up question that makes most IDS admins reach for their torches and pitchforks: Is this change effective for IDS instances running on Windows servers?