Windows Server 2016 Licensing Info
-
Ah, something that we missed.... it's a minimum of 8 cores per proc and 16 cores per server. So the smallest you can buy is always 16 cores... that much we know.
What this means is...
A single 16 core processor is fine. Two 8 core processors are fine. But four processors with four cores each is not okay.
-
@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.
There are some guys (incl. StarWind) who had built their products around an idea "let's have less sockets but more cores as sockets are licensed and cores are free". Now it turns the idea is WRONG and... we'll just get CPUs with a higher clock rates / more memory instead of paying license tax to Microsoft. We'll be good, customers will get their performance and IOPS in some other way they expected and it will be MSFT who's going to lose $$$.
-
Can anybody explain me where did $6,000+ came from?!!?
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/windows-server-2016/
(Yes, I've read MSFT FAQ)
Windows Server 2016 Editions
Datacenter Edition
Standard Edition
Core functionality of Windows ServerOSEs/Hyper-V containers*
Unlimited
2
Windows Server containers
Unlimited
Unlimited
Nano ServerNew storage features including Storage Spaces Direct and Storage Replica**
New Shielded Virtual Machines and Host Guardian Service**
New networking stack**
Licensing Model***
Core + CAL
Core + CAL
Price+
$6,155
$882 -
Yeah, the industry has put a lot of effort into all kinds of both software and hardware research based around a pricing model that has now changed.
The real lesson here is, as it has been many times in the past, that Windows is the wrong place to be making investments when you can help it.
-
My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit
-
@MattSpeller said:
My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit
Don't you guys get most everything from MS for free anyway?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit
Don't you guys get most everything from MS for free anyway?
Well, not free, but certainly "less than full price"
Even still, $75k USD + tax + canada tax (always charge more than the $ exchange) = AHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha
-
Your non-profit licensing costs are $75K in MS licenses? That's crazy!
-
@mlnews no no, if we needed to buy licenses at full pop for all our servers it'd be ~75k.
-
Oh okay, that makes much more sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.
Super Dense means a bigger single point of failure when it's for a small environment.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.
@MattSpeller said:
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@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.
Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.
Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.
I think we will see a boom in the availability and the cost of the 8 core market. And potentially a huge move to extending hyperthreading more like the Sparc architecture. Intel does 1:1 with one HT per physical core. Sparc does 1:7 and 1:15 with seven and fifteen HTs per physical. You could go much, much bigger with less licensing with the Sparc style model now.
-
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
He means intel to start making ones with more threads.. Or more likely AMD. Even though it seems most don't buy AMD they are usually the ones making most of the innovations and everyone copies. Intel just slightly improves what AMD does. Heck even an Intel CPU these days is an emulation of an AMD64 cpu.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
I don't mean changing the Windows architecture targets but it would encourage Intel and AMD to start looking at designs like how Sparc does it.
-
@Jason said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?
He means intel to start making ones with more threads.. Or more likely AMD. Even though it seems most don't buy AMD they are usually the ones making most of the innovations and everyone copies. Intel just slightly improves what AMD does. Heck even an Intel CPU these days is an emulation of an AMD64 cpu.
HT is the one spot where AMD has no experience. Intel invented it and couldn't make it work. Sun figured it out and made it the standard. AMD has avoided it, Intel has stuck with a very rudimentary version. But with this licensing, that could change.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Intel invented it and couldn't make it work.
Oh dear, I just had a PTSD flashback to 130w+ pentium 's
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Intel invented it and couldn't make it work.
Oh dear, I just had a PTSD flashback to 130w+ pentium 's
Has intel ever make anything work great that was original to them?
