What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
I've already seen a shift of local businesses that I know of who heard of this change a while back, and have started to move away from Microsoft products.
The Microsoft tax is a literal nothing in overall terms, but the CALs + the tax are what bothers most people.
And the whole thing about "you might pay more to license the new OS if you utilize high-density, multi-core processors. "
Well who is honestly purchasing servers today with 8 or less physical cores? My lab has more cores than that, and the server is from 2009!
Every server I have purchased since 2010 are dual processor eight core xeons. So 8 hyperthread cores also
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
They won't. Hardware vendors are going to build servers to accommodate this licensing so very few people will actually realize it.
That and, you know, people just don't care.
-
Gotcha - No worries. Enjoy your steaks
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
I've already seen a shift of local businesses that I know of who heard of this change a while back, and have started to move away from Microsoft products.
The Microsoft tax is a literal nothing in overall terms, but the CALs + the tax are what bothers most people.
And the whole thing about "you might pay more to license the new OS if you utilize high-density, multi-core processors. "
Well who is honestly purchasing servers today with 8 or less physical cores? My lab has more cores than that, and the server is from 2009!
Every server I have purchased since 2010 are dual processor eight core xeons. So 8 hyperthread cores also
I won't say every, but most, for sure. I'm not seeing many with more than eight cores per proc in the SMB. Who needs more than that on an Intel chip. Now if buying AMD, sure.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
Correct, you don't have to license two processors, but they only sell a 2 processor license.
So if you have a server with a single processor and want 2016, you are still paying for that second CPU.
No they sell 2-core packs
At a minimum of 8 cores for each physical processor. So you'd have to purchase 4 packs.
(You are correct though, sold in 2 core packs)
ā¢ A minimum of 16 core licenses is required for each server.
ā¢ A minimum of 8 core licenses is required for each physical processor. -
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
8 core min per processor. 16 core min per physical server.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
Correct, you don't have to license two processors, but they only sell a 2 processor license.
So if you have a server with a single processor and want 2016, you are still paying for that second CPU.
No they sell 2-core packs
At a minimum of 8 cores for each physical processor. So you'd have to purchase 4 packs.
(You are correct though, sold in 2 core packs)
ā¢ A minimum of 16 core licenses is required for each server.
ā¢ A minimum of 8 core licenses is required for each physical processor.I know I am correct, we already talked about this a week ago in another thread.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
8 core min per processor. 16 core min per physical server.
Which means you could purchase a server with a single processor and only 8 cores (you'd be insane too) and have to purchase licensing for the 8/16 minimums.
-
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
Why not? The procs aren't redundant until you get into enterprise RAS features in the $50K or higher server range. So you actually take on more risk, rather than less, with two procs because there is more to fail. And dual procs are less efficient than one (about 1% less.) So unless you are using the cores, it's not to your benefit. It raises the cost of hardware and raises software overhead and increases risk.
That's why vendors like IBM, Oracle, Fujitsu and Scale all target single proc space heavily - the dual proc thing is partially a vestige of the "low CPU power" era combined with legacy Microsoft licensing that arose from that era. If you are on UNIX, whether entry level servers or massive RISC systems, single proc boxes are the go to systems until you need more power than a single proc can provide and in the RISC space that's way, way bigger than two Intel procs in the SMB space.
-
-
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
All the stuff I've read said licensing is the number of cores was all that mattered.
I think that this is true. This will actually push the sixteen core single proc systems I would guess.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
Yeah, they've been very unclear on that. If so, it will put AMD back on the map, but only for the single proc, 16 core use case.
-
I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.
Would AMD do that? They weren't too far away from being on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago. I'd be surprised if Oracle or IBM would be interested in a partnership at this point.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.
Would AMD do that? They weren't too far away from being on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago. I'd be surprised if Oracle or IBM would be interested in a partnership at this point.
Why would AMD being on the "brink" be of any actual concern to IBM or Oracle? That seems to be an odd thing for them to care about, especially if it was years ago. I don't see the relevance.
Would AMD? They've already turned to ARM and are leaving the AMD64 space in many areas. If they want to compete in the Intel/Microsoft world of AMD64 platforms they need to do something. Either get out completely or hit back with something amazing.
As AMD is one of the big RISC vendors now along with IBM and Oracle, it would make sense for them to work together.
-
-
Trying to figure out why the f*ck my wife's Android based ebook reader (rebranded Boyue T62+) can't see wifi networks anymore.
Hardware looks good so far, my first thought was a disconnected antenna:
Stopped working just a few hours ago, without any firmware update or changes to my wifi.
-
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Trying to figure out why the f*ck my wife's Android based ebook reader (rebranded Boyue T62+) can't see wifi networks anymore.
Hardware looks good so far, my first thought was a disconnected antenna:
Stopped working just a few hours ago, without any firmware update or changes to my wifi.
Interesting log (via Android Debug Bridge):
Guess I will need to dig a bit deeper
-
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@thwr said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Trying to figure out why the f*ck my wife's Android based ebook reader (rebranded Boyue T62+) can't see wifi networks anymore.
Hardware looks good so far, my first thought was a disconnected antenna:
Stopped working just a few hours ago, without any firmware update or changes to my wifi.
Interesting log (via Android Debug Bridge):
Guess I will need to dig a bit deeper
Here let me help you with that.
-
Just got tickets for next week's RiffTrax live event... The 1962 classic "Carnival of Souls", live riffed by the MST3K guys (Mike, Bill, and Corbett). Their live shows are always side-splitting.
