Windows Server 2016 Pricing
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
That said, because you have 2 servers, you are buying a 16 core bundle for each server.
So the 24 core thing is not relevant to you.
Yeah ok, my intention was to calculate the price for a small two host cluster. Already wondered that Microsoft offers a 24 core bundle that you could split up between hosts. But I understand that you can't do that, so I'll probably go for dual octa-core hosts for my next setup and 2x 16 core licences.
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
Sure, but they also are seeing less revenue because what used to require 2+ servers now only requires one. So the old licensing tied to processor sockets limited the revenue from new clients. So they changed licensing to match the modern situation. Must customers will be paying nearly the same as they did in the past. The cost for the 16 core license is nearly the same as the old Dual Socket license. Only if you need the power of additional cores for the business do you buy them, and when you buy them, you pay pay MS commensurate fee.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
Very hard to license based on RAM. Could be done, I suppose.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
Sure, but they also are seeing less revenue because what used to require 2+ servers now only requires one. So the old licensing tied to processor sockets limited the revenue from new clients. So they changed licensing to match the modern situation. Must customers will be paying nearly the same as they did in the past. The cost for the 16 core license is nearly the same as the old Dual Socket license. Only if you need the power of additional cores for the business do you buy them, and when you buy them, you pay pay MS commensurate fee.
What he meant is that they are in a legacy model where the degree to which Windows is used was determined mostly by CPU. But today it is mostly by RAM.
-
So, for example, if you get dial octa-core procs, get hyper-threading, maybe Intel boosts to 4x or 8x hyperthreading instead of just 2x like now, add insane amounts of SSD, add GPU and RAID cards to offload all possible computational work, add a few TB of fast RAM and suddenly you have the power of a mainframe with only a minimal Windows license. You might pull off 100 VMs on that little 16 core box. The CPU is so seldom the bottleneck that your workloads are almost never determined by it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
So, for example, if you get dial octa-core procs, get hyper-threading, maybe Intel boosts to 4x or 8x hyperthreading instead of just 2x like now, add insane amounts of SSD, add GPU and RAID cards to offload all possible computational work, add a few TB of fast RAM and suddenly you have the power of a mainframe with only a minimal Windows license. You might pull off 100 VMs on that little 16 core box. The CPU is so seldom the bottleneck that your workloads are almost never determined by it.
LOL - of course, and when MS sees that that is happening, I'm sure we'll see new licensing models again - assuming they haven't decided to give up on the charge for OS model and instead just give it away and solely charge for support or some other revenue stream.
-
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
-
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
-
@travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
That's kind of the same thing
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
That's kind of the same thing
That is also not very limited at all. Most SMB do not have that much in their servers. If they have more, they bought too much.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
That's kind of the same thing
That is also not very limited at all. Most SMB do not have that much in their servers. If they have more, they bought too much.
Same for cores. Most SMBs that have more than sixteen per server bought too much, often way too much. Especially if they are Intel cores.
