Kingsley Idehen wrote: > Ceriel Jacobs wrote: >> Op 25 feb 2010, om 06:51 heeft Kingsley Idehen het volgende geschreven: >> >> >>> Ceriel Jacobs wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:01:42 -0500 Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>> >>>>> Anyway, lets discuss as I am very open to thoughts from the community re. >>>>> this important matter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In our situation we would prefer to trade some workstation cores for >>>> connections. >>>> Instead of 8 cores with 10 connections, 2 cores with 40 connections. >>>> >>>> >>> Okay, will think about it relative to the new special offer pricing. >>> >> For your information, we are in the very "grey" zone of rather small SMB >> companies. The workstations over here we intend to run virtuoso on, >> currently have no more than 2 cores and a total of 3.3GB of addressable RAM >> memory. Within a few years that might be 4 cores and 4 or 8GB of memory, no >> more. These machines are relative small. >> > For starters, special or standard pricing, I believe you fall into the > Desktop Operating system realm and threshold for processor cores is 8; > thus, no incremental charges by processor cores. >> Threads is still something vague to a non-developer. > These are basically the database session channels. >> On such a relative complex product as Virtuoso even to me it is (1) not >> clear what/how will be limited and (2) which number of connections are >> necessary in a web-connected environment. The fact/feeling I don't like is >> that webapp users might need to wait due to license limits. I can better >> live with hardware bound restrictions. >> > You have to look at this kind of technology like a motorway or highway. > The number of lanes affect the probability of congestion. The lower the > congestion the higher the benefits to everyone in the "goods and > services" economy :-) > > For us, monetization is simply a function of "opportunity cost" etc.. We > don't price anything just because we can, its all about production costs > (our side) and opportunity costs alleviation (customer side). > > The kind of conversation we are having right now is how both parties > deal with calibration of the items above. > >> That is why I would like to offer another consideration to simplify and >> offer "fair" licensing for non-technical users. This could be licenses based >> on the number of RAM memory that can be consumed by virtuoso. RAM is easy to >> understand and easy to enforce(?). This might include a processor core >> number limit. >> > Yes, this is certainly being considered, and even internally, the are > very strong echoes re. the perception of "fairness" etc.. >> For instance let's say on a workstation type OS, with 2GB or RAM, and a 2 >> core processor, machine. Could that be (just a starting point, don't be >> angry)... $ 49? Now you might think, I don't wan't to sell such tiny >> volumes. Sell them bundled: 10 x 2GB/2core license: $ 490,- >> >> It would be truly great if later on, multiple licenses can still be >> installed on a single running instance. Call it 'license partitioning'. >> Adding a 2GB/2core pack to an existing 2GB/2core pack would let the user >> extend his running virtuoso instance to (user can choose to prefer for >> maximization of RAM or processor cores): '4GB @ 2 cores' or '2GB @ 4 cores'. >> Three packs would be: '6GB @ 2 cores', '2GB @ 6 cores' or '3GB @ 4 cores' >> (when the machine has no more than 4 cores available). So the small user is >> able to mix and match. >> > Very nice idea as per my comments above, a very very strong candidate > suggestion re. pricing, thanks!!
please do consider people temporarily upping the memory usage / buffers for loading in graphs :)
