It seems crazy to me that they impose imaginary limits on the self-hosted version, you can have a server that can handle more executions, but the license won't allow it.
People continue to use these limitations. A long time ago when multicore CPUs were new or even systems with multiple CPUs saw vendors charge higher fees to allow their software to run on more than one core/cpu. My first run in with this was transcoding software with the license running ~$5k per core. To them, it was a whole second computer since everything was single threaded, so they felt it was worth twice as much. All it took was for someone else to not charge per core and took away business for that sales model to go the way of the dodo.
Huh? Isn't that oracle's business strategy in 2025, still?
I mean my current role doesn't put me into these kinds of considerations anymore, but I didn't hear they've changed their ways - so I just thought that's still the way you pay for Oracle DB
Oracle was the first company I thought of who licensed per-CPU.
Many moons ago I was a sysadmin at a company and first heard about their licensing strategy when sizing up some new multi-socket Opteron servers. First time I learned about per-CPU licensing.
It’s per core licensing with core factors. Core factor ranges from 0.25 to 1. I have not checked how it is now, but it used to be as above 5-10 years ago
I can see an argument of "well it typically bogs down and stops being performant at X, and we don't want to get a bad rep because people abuse it, so we don't allow anything over X", but that should still be negotiable if you can show you have plenty of horsepower.
Look I love giving people the benefit of the doubt, but that's not why this pricing model exits. It's because they want to capture a percentage of the value delivered, and the easiest way to do that it to charge by executions