Windows Server 2016 Pricing
-
Absolutely ridiculous.
-
Pricing really hasn't changed that much. Just the licensing has. If you were licensing properly before with up to 4 CPUs and 8 Cores the costs will not go up.
-
-
It hasn't changed that much, it only sucks if you're at the scale where you're over a few physical hosts but not up to the point where you can negotiate a licensing agreement with Microsoft.
-
The pricing in general. Although I am really fond of the feature set that Microsoft has provided on their latest OS, I don't find it necessary for them to gouge their customers. Just sayin.
-
@antonit said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
The pricing in general. Although I am really fond of the feature set that Microsoft has provided on their latest OS, I don't find it necessary for them to gouge their customers.
So are you saying that they have always gouged their customers? or this new pricing is gouging?
-
@coliver You're right, it hasn't changed much. Just with businesses virtualizing as much as they can, the amount of hosts that are being used are being increased. That's where I see the financial impact.
-
@Dashrender Point taken.
-
What does "operating system environments" actually mean?
I would assume it means 2 Windows Server VMs.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
What does "operating system environments" actually mean?
I would assume it means 2 Windows Server VMs.
Yes. Same as it's always been. though with Containers you can do Process virtualization and save money.
-
Pricing remains this same if you're only using 2 physical CPUs per host with up to 8 cores each. But with higher core count CPUs (and let's be honest, anyone running a virtualized datacenter will be using more than 8 cores per CPU), you have to license per-core, in
8-core bundles(EDIT: 2 core bundles, not 8 core bundles, my bad).http://www.vladan.fr/wp-content/uploads/images/cores.jpg
We're about to get bit by this. I just stood up 3 new hosts in a VSAN deployment (working on the 4th). Dual Xeon E5-2690V3 12-core CPUs per host = 24 cores per host = $9,232.48 per host for Server 2016 Datacenter licensing. Times 4.
That's 150% of the cost of Server 2012 for our deployment. And it is really making me wonder if we should move to 2016 at all. Almost all of the new features are aimed at cloud convergence and/or Hyper-V, none of which is applicable in our environment. Heck, they're even locking out features like Nano Server to Azure based deployments only. The only reason to upgrade as I see it is to avoid earlier sunsetting/EOL for 2012. No significant feature changes that validate paying 50% more.
I'm curious to see what kind of SLED contract pricing is available. Reports say the 2016 pricelist will be published Oct 1.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Pricing remains this same if you're only using 2 physical CPUs per host with up to 8 cores each. But with higher core count CPUs (and let's be honest, anyone running a virtualized datacenter will be using more than 8 cores per CPU), you have to license per-core, in 8-core bundles.
http://www.vladan.fr/wp-content/uploads/images/cores.jpg
We're about to get bit by this. I just stood up 3 new hosts in a VSAN deployment (working on the 4th). Dual Xeon E5-2690V3 12-core CPUs per host = 24 cores per host = $9,232.48 per host for Server 2016 Datacenter licensing. Times 4.
That's 150% of the cost of Server 2012 for our deployment. And it is really making me wonder if we should move to 2016 at all. Almost all of the new features are aimed at cloud convergence and/or Hyper-V, none of which is applicable in our environment. Heck, they're even locking out features like Nano Server to Azure based deployments only. The only reason to upgrade as I see it is to avoid earlier sunsetting/EOL for 2012. No significant feature changes that validate paying 50% more.
I'm curious to see what kind of SLED contract pricing is available. Reports say the 2016 pricelist will be published Oct 1.
That price spreadsheet is not accurate.
-
@JaredBusch In what respect?
-
Like in the past. If you're struggling to pay for Windows licensing you should probably consider a move to a non-windows environment.
Either way, I mentioned earlier that I agree the majority of people who are affected by this will be the people between the SMB (where they only have one or two hosts) and the Enterprise (where you negotiate your own pricing).
-
From the Microsoft Windows Server 2016 Licensing FAQ (PDF Download
See also:
Instead of 2012's two socket license pack, 2016 will use a 2 core pack, with the license cost of each 2016 pack being 1/8th the price of the corresponding 2 socket pack for 2012. Each system running Windows Server 2016 must have a minimum of 8 cores (4 packs) per processor, and a minimum of 16 cores (8 packs) per system.
For systems with up to 4 processors and up to 8 cores per processor, this won't change the overall licensing cost. Above this, however, things get more expensive; although the price for a single processor 10 core system will remain the same, with two or or more sockets populated by 10 core processors, prices will go up; 2 or 4 processors with 10 cores per processor will cost 25 percent more to run Windows Server 2016 than they did 2012.
(Source: ArsTechnica)
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch In what respect?
The claim of more expensive in percent does not clarify that it is more expensive compared to server 2012 pricing.
Any sane person looking at that graph sees a standard linear price line per core.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch In what respect?
The claim of more expensive in percent does not clarify that it is more expensive compared to server 2012 pricing.
Any sane person looking at that graph sees a standard linear price line per core.
That graph was taken from the linked article discussing the 2012 vs 2016 pricing. Yes, out of context the graph could seem misleading... but for the purpose of this discussion it is entirely sane and relevant.
Do you disagree with the interpretation that running more than 8 cores per pCPU will carry the indicated price increases?
ETA: Imagine another column labeled "2012 Price" , where every row said "$6,155".
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch In what respect?
The claim of more expensive in percent does not clarify that it is more expensive compared to server 2012 pricing.
Any sane person looking at that graph sees a standard linear price line per core.
That graph was taken from the linked article discussing the 2012 vs 2016 pricing. Yes, out of context the graph could seem misleading... but for the purpose of this discussion it is entirely sane and relevant.
Do you disagree with the interpretation that running more than 8 cores per pCPU will carry the indicated price increases?
ETA: Imagine another column labeled "2012 Price" , where every row said "$6,155".
Of course anyone running more than 2x8 core will pay more. But then no one in the SMB really needs more than that. They certainly do not generally need data center in the first place.
What workloads do you have that you need so many cores?
-
Anyone know if 2x8 and 1x16 would be licensed the same on a single box?
-
@scottalanmiller I 1x10 is the most that a single Datacenter license will cover... I read that somewhere but don't remember where
