With the new multi-core architecture of Intel Nehalem being so "fast", IBM has changed the PVU licensing per core from 50 PVU to 70 PVUs. This change is effective 04/01/2009.

The actual announcement letter is here and the newly updated PVU table is here.

This now means a new Xeon will need 280 PVUs for a Quad core, a net increase of 80 PVUs. To avoid compliance issues with your IBM licensing please contact STS.
Darren Duke   |   April 21 2009 07:50:01 AM   |    domino    |  
  |   Next Document   |   Previous Document

Discussion for this entry is now closed.

Comments (5)

Gravatar Image
1 - Curt Carlson    http://cjcarlson@blogspot.com    04/21/2009 9:59:06 AM

This is what happens when the guys from accounting get bonuses for inventing new revenue streams from thin air. IBM continues to go down a path that punishes customers who want to install on better hardware. This is just a very bad practice. Why on god's green earth should IBM make more money just because Intel built a better processor?

Gravatar Image
2 - Darren Duke    http://blog.darrenduke.net    04/21/2009 10:08:08 AM

@1, I completely concur. I have always disliked PVU anyway, I prefer per-socket licensing like VMware uses, zero penalty for faster procs.

This is going to be a compliance nightmare.

Gravatar Image
3 - Dag Kvello       04/28/2009 9:40:38 AM

IBM is behaving like the customer are leasing the HW from IBM.

Consider a customer uppgrading his 2xQuad CPU server to a new 2xHex CPU.

He used to pay for 400 PVU's and now has to pay for 840...

Do we have to warn customers from upgrading their HW?

IBM is sooooo on the wrong path here. I've got plenty of customers already protesting about the whole PVU model. This is going to upset even more.

Gravatar Image
4 - Darren Duke    http://blog.darrenduke.net    04/29/2009 6:58:22 AM

Yes, you should warn customers when upgrading Intel hardware, and the PVU calculator already has the updated numbers. Remember this is CPU model related so it maybe difficult to assertain what CPU the customer is buying before it is installed.

Gravatar Image
5 - Canolli       05/20/2009 10:11:29 AM

With the per-socket model, while virtualization and OS vendors are safe, other software vendors are losing out due to virtualisation.

One possible model that I don't see in use is the per-installed-OS model, which could also easily be combined with per-socket.