Windows Server 2016 Licensing Info
-
@scottalanmiller I just bought my first server with more than 6 cores/socket a few months ago(it has 10). So that's the perspective I'm coming from. It still raises the cost of it, and I will likely look at more Linux based solutions in the future.
-
That's one way to make people run away from your products, more so than they already are.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
@mlnews Thats not too bad...
It's pretty bad. Even NTG Lab's old lab gear has more than eight cores per proc. This will likely make the cost of deploying Windows skyrocket unless people are custom buying special, small servers just for running Windows.
It's especially bad when you consider that for the cost of your time alone, you can have an enterprise grade OS that will run for years with no downtime.
Is there any way to limit how many cores a system can use in Windows?
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
@scottalanmiller I just bought my first server with more than 6 cores/socket a few months ago(it has 10). So that's the perspective I'm coming from. It still raises the cost of it, and I will likely look at more Linux based solutions in the future.
The licensing is heavily weighted to Intel rather than AMD. Intel uses logical cores rather than physical ones. AMD uses physical ones. This is very much, I would guess, a response to AMD's investment in ARM technology.
-
@johnhooks said:
Is there any way to limit how many cores a system can use in Windows?
Yes, of course, but it is unlikely that limited the cores used will be considered in licensing just as turning off CPUs was not an option before either.
-
Do you have to license virtual cores/threads since the OS thinks they are real ones?
Is there any pricing out yet?
-
@Jason said:
Do you have to license virtual cores/threads since the OS thinks they are real ones?
Is there any pricing out yet?
No, they made a point that it was physical cores.
Have not seen the pricing yet.
-
wonder why it's 16 cores min per server. I imagine that will suck for some SMBs.
-
@scottalanmiller I read somewhere(not microsoft so might not be true) That the base DC license will be $6100 and include 2 processors of 8-cores each. Didnt say anything about the 2 core addder licenses.
-
@Jason said:
wonder why it's 16 cores min per server. I imagine that will suck for some SMBs.
No different than the old two sockets minimum. Basically they've just renamed "socket" to "8 cores". So as long as you are at 8 cores per CPU or fewer today, you are not affected compared to the amount that you were affected previously. If you have any more cores, you suddenly pay more without getting more.
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
@scottalanmiller I read somewhere(not microsoft so might not be true) That the base DC license will be $6100 and include 2 processors of 8-cores each. Didnt say anything about the 2 core addder licenses.
Cool. That's a little lower, but not much for a massive decrease in functionality considering even servers that people might buy for home could easily be much larger than that.
-
I'd say that's typical Microsoft. One step forward, 20 backwards...
They did a great job simplifying licensing in 2012 and bringing the same feature set in both editions, and now this. I have 2x12 core Opterons in my servers, there's no way I'm upgrading to 2016. -
@marcinozga Same issues here. Anyone with AMD procs is screwed here.
-
Wow... this licensing is going to be a mess.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Is there any way to limit how many cores a system can use in Windows?
Yes, of course, but it is unlikely that limited the cores used will be considered in licensing just as turning off CPUs was not an option before either.
Apparently you can disable a proc and not be charged, but the cores won't matter.
" However, disabling hyper threading or disabling
cores for specific programs does not relieve the need for a Windows Server license on the physical cores." -
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
Is there any way to limit how many cores a system can use in Windows?
Yes, of course, but it is unlikely that limited the cores used will be considered in licensing just as turning off CPUs was not an option before either.
Apparently you can disable a proc and not be charged, but the cores won't matter.
" However, disabling hyper threading or disabling
cores for specific programs does not relieve the need for a Windows Server license on the physical cores."HT would not affect it as HT are not physical cores but only logical thread engines. And disabling a core for a PROGRAM would not be expected to matter since it is the OS, not the apps, for which there is licensing.
-
I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.
A win for SOHO, LOL.
-
@BRRABill said:
I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.
A win for SOHO, LOL.
But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.
-
The only winners here are the Linux shops.
-
Licensing cores is roughly the same as licensing GHz. You can do it, but it is going to hamper processor development and change what people buy and how things are done.
