Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@pmoncho said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
That I get but does it make sense to get DC to stick with single function hosts? Does an SMB really want to pay for a WSUS, Email, two DC's, FileServer and two/three RDS servers separately?
All my SMBs do. The protection is important and once you have any number, DC makes the separation "free".
We do. It was a matter of how many we needed then, and adding as we went. Now two DC licenses would be worth it, but we couldn't predict it that far in advance 7+ years ago.
Edit: We have Windows Server Standard with SA
-
@hobbit666 said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
My God reading things like this confuse me more lmao.
But am I right in summarizing this way:-
If I have a single VM that's "critical" and need to move/migrate it due to issues if all my hosts are licensed with DC with the correct core count and SA.
I can move that VM as often as I want? I.e every day(Or applied to unlimited number of VMs due to DC)
What if I had all hosts licensed with DC but no SA would I then be limited to the 90day limit?
@StorageNinja can correct me if I am wrong, but if all hosts have DC, there is no limit because there is no limit to the licensing on each host in the first place.
It is only with Standard that you have the 90 day license portability thing. From one host with Standard to another host.
-
@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@obsolesce Yeah. Somewhere I saw the 90 day limit applied to DC. I guess if you have DC on both, it doesn't matter.
There are no restrictions with Linux VMs. You can transfer those back and forth from Hyper-V host to host all day along, no licensing anywhere required (so long as the Linux VMs aren't running any software with such restrictions).
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@obsolesce Yeah. Somewhere I saw the 90 day limit applied to DC. I guess if you have DC on both, it doesn't matter.
There are no restrictions with Linux VMs. You can transfer those back and forth from Hyper-V host to host all day along, no licensing anywhere required (so long as the Linux VMs aren't running any software with such restrictions).
Right. I understand that it is only a Windows-related VM licensing issue.
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
so long as the Linux VMs aren't running any software with such restrictions
MSSQL on Linux would need SA?
-
Off topic, soz.
What is a use case for running MSSQL on linux rather than MySQL? Saving 500 dollars on a Windows Server license? Certainly there must be features in MSSQL that are missing in MySQL(and vice versa), but they must be some esoteric things that likely only work with other MS products like Dynamics or Sharepoint. With licensing costs of those products in the tens of thousands for even small deployments, why? -
@momurda said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Off topic, soz.
What is a use case for running MSSQL on linux rather than MySQL? Saving 500 dollars on a Windows Server license? Certainly there must be features in MSSQL that are missing in MySQL(and vice versa), but they must be some esoteric things that likely only work with other MS products like Dynamics or Sharepoint. With licensing costs of those products in the tens of thousands for even small deployments, why?This is where it gets a little sticky for me. That Windows server license is no longer $500. If a company has 3 hosts in a cluster with 30 cores (10 on each host), that one server license with SA could cost 1000's. All depends on how they are licensed.
-
@momurda said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Off topic, soz.
What is a use case for running MSSQL on linux rather than MySQL? Saving 500 dollars on a Windows Server license? Certainly there must be features in MSSQL that are missing in MySQL(and vice versa), but they must be some esoteric things that likely only work with other MS products like Dynamics or Sharepoint. With licensing costs of those products in the tens of thousands for even small deployments, why?For example, we use ResourceMate for our school library and by default, it uses MSSQL Express. Now I can just setup MSSQL Express on Linux instead of using Windows.
-
@black3dynamite said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@momurda said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Off topic, soz.
What is a use case for running MSSQL on linux rather than MySQL? Saving 500 dollars on a Windows Server license? Certainly there must be features in MSSQL that are missing in MySQL(and vice versa), but they must be some esoteric things that likely only work with other MS products like Dynamics or Sharepoint. With licensing costs of those products in the tens of thousands for even small deployments, why?Now I can just setup MSSQL Express on Linux instead of using Windows.
This could be a big saver for smaller SMB's. Jumpcloud with Win 10 PC's KVM and Linux VM's and MSSQL Express. Nice and saves $1500.
-
Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.
http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/
-
@bbigford said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.
http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/
Thanks! Bookmarked this. I don't know why MS doesn't have this tool on their site.
-
@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@bbigford said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.
http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/
Thanks! Bookmarked this. I don't know why MS doesn't have this tool on their site.
Because it's a basic concept and uses simple math, so a tool like this is not needed.
-
@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@bbigford said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.
http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/
Thanks! Bookmarked this. I don't know why MS doesn't have this tool on their site.
Not in their interest. People overbuy licensing by accident by huge margins.
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@bbigford said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.
http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/
Thanks! Bookmarked this. I don't know why MS doesn't have this tool on their site.
Because it's a basic concept and uses simple math, so a tool like this is not needed.
And it doesn't calculate the important bits, like mobility.
-
@wrx7m said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@bbigford said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Here's a tool for anyone that wants it.
http://h17007.www1.hpe.com/us/en/enterprise/servers/licensing/
Thanks! Bookmarked this. I don't know why MS doesn't have this tool on their site.
Most of the tools that vendors release are just spreadsheets. This is just a fancy spreadsheet, but works well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@storageninja said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Oh yes, that's the big thing, but within the context of moving things around, you don't get much. I'm a big believer in SA just being a cost of Windows. If you run Windows Server you need SA and/or you need to pay out of pocket for each upgrade. It's part of the base cost of maintaining a Windows infrastructure.
Also if you have 300 users and use Windows at any scale, you need an EA.
A big benefit to EA/ELA's with vendors is it just simplifies the procurement discussion to a single agreement that should last you 3 years. This makes it easy for your staff to just deploy stuff rather than go through bid/procurement everytime they need to deploy something.Is 300 really enough for an EA? I'm really asking, not trying to sound incredulous. That's so small that often you are still in the "two server" range. At that size, you could be looking at EA basically for anyone, why even have anything but EA?
Office, windows (Desktops) and AD CALs it tended to work out especially as this means everyone can be running the current version and not stuck in mismatched hell based on what OEM edition you got when you bought something.
-
@jaredbusch said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@hobbit666 said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
My God reading things like this confuse me more lmao.
But am I right in summarizing this way:-
If I have a single VM that's "critical" and need to move/migrate it due to issues if all my hosts are licensed with DC with the correct core count and SA.
I can move that VM as often as I want? I.e every day(Or applied to unlimited number of VMs due to DC)
What if I had all hosts licensed with DC but no SA would I then be limited to the 90day limit?
@StorageNinja can correct me if I am wrong, but if all hosts have DC, there is no limit because there is no limit to the licensing on each host in the first place.
It is only with Standard that you have the 90 day license portability thing. From one host with Standard to another host.
This is correct.
-
maybe this was answered here, but I was wondering if someone can correct me on this
If i put WIndows server VM with 2 cores on Hypervisor any brand which has 8 cores.
Do i need to license windows server VM for 2 cores or 8 cores ?
-
@emad-r said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
maybe this was answered here, but I was wondering if someone can correct me on this
If i put WIndows server VM with 2 cores on Hypervisor any brand which has 8 cores.
Do i need to license windows server VM for 2 cores or 8 cores ?
You must always purchase a minimum of 16 cores for a Standard Windows Server license. You purchase Windows Server based on the physical core count of the physical host, always a minimum of 16 cores.
-
@emad-r said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
maybe this was answered here, but I was wondering if someone can correct me on this
If i put WIndows server VM with 2 cores on Hypervisor any brand which has 8 cores.
Do i need to license windows server VM for 2 cores or 8 cores ?
There are no cores at the VM level, those are vCPUs. Windows is licensed by cores, not by vCPUs. Cores are always physical, and the minimum is 16. No matter how you configure the VMs and vCPUs, you have to license 16 cores at a minimum.
A single vCPU could use sixteen cores or more to power it, the licensing is by the available power, not the configuration.
