Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment
-
@obsolesce the part that I just stated is worth exactly zero and is a scam?
Ever met someone who actually got (or needed) MS support? There are two keys here...
- If it is really broken and you need support, you aren't getting any.
- You don't need support if the product works, and while lots of people claim otherwise, MS actually makes pretty solid products and the value to having support available (even if it was real) approaches zero. This is what your IT staff does already.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Ever met someone who actually got (or needed) MS support? There are two keys here...
If it is really broken and you need support, you aren't getting any.
It appears you have never personally tried. There is a specific support channel for SA holders. It requires your SA VL ID or whatever its called. I don't know where you are getting your info... Perhaps myth or based on the fact nobody you heard of knows about it.
-
If you browse the internet, there's clearly hundreds of thousands of issues people have with this stuff that they could had gotten cleared up easily with SA support.
-
@obsolesce 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:
Ever met someone who actually got (or needed) MS support? There are two keys here...
If it is really broken and you need support, you aren't getting any.
It appears you have never personally tried. There is a specific support channel for SA holders. It requires your SA VL ID or whatever its called. I don't know where you are getting your info... Perhaps myth or based on the fact nobody you heard of knows about it.
I got my info from someone on the MS support engineering desk.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/17252/what-is-expected-of-microsoft-server-support
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
If you browse the internet, there's clearly hundreds of thousands of issues people have with this stuff that they could had gotten cleared up easily with SA support.
That's not a valid assumption. It assumes a level of support that isn't proven. It also is really a statement of not being qualified to do their jobs moreso than anything.
You could read the same stories and say "here are people running an OS without the IT staff necessary to do so."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@obsolesce 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:
Ever met someone who actually got (or needed) MS support? There are two keys here...
If it is really broken and you need support, you aren't getting any.
It appears you have never personally tried. There is a specific support channel for SA holders. It requires your SA VL ID or whatever its called. I don't know where you are getting your info... Perhaps myth or based on the fact nobody you heard of knows about it.
I got my info from someone on the MS support engineering desk.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/17252/what-is-expected-of-microsoft-server-support
Perhaps they changed it after they told you whatever they said. I've seen a different experience. Not arguing, just saying.
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
It appears you have never personally tried.
Never needed to. I know how to admin Windows, and Windows is a solid, working product that MS regularly fixes when broken without needing customers to pay extra. I can't fathom a scenario where support would be useful in the real world. It would require the product to be broken in such a way that MS refused to fix it without the support contract and with it were willing to do so (which MS support desk says doesn't happen, it's a scam) and/or me not knowing how to use a product I'm supposed to be the expert on already.
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Perhaps they changed it after they told you whatever they said. I've seen a different experience. Not arguing, just saying.
Please keep the support discussion in the support thread. None of this is relevant to the OP in this one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
VMWare also causes bizarre decision making because they get SMBs with their sunk cost fallacy because they sell you three hosts / six sockets as a minimum pack. So to "make use of what they bought", everyone then deploys exactly that.
But that isn't a useful number for modern SMBs, and it really screws you with Windows licensing and hardware costs.
Look at the example here, three tiny hosts (I know it's just a theoretical learning example, but it's how people do it) with six CPUs where three would be cheaper and have better performance, and three hosts where two would be cheaper and have better performance.
Look at the cluster size, it's a total of 36 cores. You can do that better and cheaper using two, single socket servers with 18 cores each! If you needed a little extra during a failover, go for two at 20 cores each or whatever.
It would drop something like 25-30% of the cost of the Windows licensing, and drop something like 15-25% of the hardware costs, all while reducing the number of things to fail (decent increase in reliability), giving you better sizing options on workloads (single critical workloads could be bigger), reducing the number of things to manage, and improving performance (better cache hits, memory performance, CPU performance!)
So many wins all lost, typically, because of nothing but a bizarre emotional reaction to the VMware licensing model.
Yeah that's kind of what happened... We originally had vSphere Essentials Plus with 2 ESXi hosts in a cluster, then later upgraded to 6.5 and added a 3rd host (with the specs listed in my OP) and now I am seeing how this is going to dramatically affect licensing cost. I suppose I could simply just remove a host to cut costs. Our VM environment was growing as we were eliminating physical servers, but now that we are going hosted and certain products are no longer used, etc, our virtual environment will be shrinking as well.
Right now I am trying to determine the most cost-effective way to plan and license for X number of 2016 boxes.
I will be AFK for a while after this so i will go through all the responses when I get back.
Thanks for all the input!
-
@dave247 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:
VMWare also causes bizarre decision making because they get SMBs with their sunk cost fallacy because they sell you three hosts / six sockets as a minimum pack. So to "make use of what they bought", everyone then deploys exactly that.
But that isn't a useful number for modern SMBs, and it really screws you with Windows licensing and hardware costs.
Look at the example here, three tiny hosts (I know it's just a theoretical learning example, but it's how people do it) with six CPUs where three would be cheaper and have better performance, and three hosts where two would be cheaper and have better performance.
Look at the cluster size, it's a total of 36 cores. You can do that better and cheaper using two, single socket servers with 18 cores each! If you needed a little extra during a failover, go for two at 20 cores each or whatever.
It would drop something like 25-30% of the cost of the Windows licensing, and drop something like 15-25% of the hardware costs, all while reducing the number of things to fail (decent increase in reliability), giving you better sizing options on workloads (single critical workloads could be bigger), reducing the number of things to manage, and improving performance (better cache hits, memory performance, CPU performance!)
So many wins all lost, typically, because of nothing but a bizarre emotional reaction to the VMware licensing model.
Yeah that's kind of what happened... We originally had vSphere Essentials Plus with 2 ESXi hosts in a cluster, then later upgraded to 6.5 and added a 3rd host (with the specs listed in my OP) and now I am seeing how this is going to dramatically affect licensing cost. I suppose I could simply just remove a host to cut costs. Our VM environment was growing as we were eliminating physical servers, but now that we are going hosted and certain products are no longer used, etc, our virtual environment will be shrinking as well.
Right now I am trying to determine the most cost-effective way to plan and license for X number of 2016 boxes.
I will be AFK for a while after this so i will go through all the responses when I get back.
Thanks for all the input!
Finding a way to fit in two boxes normally does a TON to save money.
And avoiding "mobility" saves a ton, too. People don't think about what a trivial feature that normally is, and what a cost it brings to the table.
-
With three hosts and mobility, you have to license each VM across all servers, but can skip SA if you don't want the upgrade rights.
With two hosts and failover, you have to license only the largest host, and add SA. Then you get the upgrade rights for "free". It's just icing, rather than the cake.
-
@obsolesce 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:
Moving to Hyper-V or KVM would save some, but most of it is Windows
Isn't the bare minimum VMWare cost like $1300 per Cpu socket?
That's still $8k or so. And that doesn't get you anything more than Hyper-V except $8k of support you won't use.
What are you talking about? I already have VMware set up and running so there is no VMware cost associated with the Windows 2016 licensing situation.
-
@obsolesce said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
So we're at like $35,000 of software licensing at this point... For what? What's the end goal here that justifies the costs? Oh, that's not even considering CALs. That could be many more thousands. And this is every few years without SA.
I'm not sure how you came up with $35,000 here... I calculated that it would be around roughly $3K for core licenses across those three hosts (per every 2 instances of Server 2016).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
Now to make things more complicated, if you didn't want cluster mobility, but only failover, you can move to SA licensing which isn't cheap, but is way cheaper than this. But if you wanted that, the three node cluster doesn't make sense. So based on the example, SA doesn't cover the goals.
So this is the first time I think I've heard of Software Assurance, and I've just looked it up and done a bit of reading. I understood the words that I read, but it's not really clear to me what exactly SA is or how it could help me in this situation... would you mind helping me understand? It usually takes a while for things to sink in with me..
-
@dave247 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:
Now to make things more complicated, if you didn't want cluster mobility, but only failover, you can move to SA licensing which isn't cheap, but is way cheaper than this. But if you wanted that, the three node cluster doesn't make sense. So based on the example, SA doesn't cover the goals.
So this is the first time I think I've heard of Software Assurance, and I've just looked it up and done a bit of reading. I understood the words that I read, but it's not really clear to me what exactly SA is or how it could help me in this situation... would you mind helping me understand?
SA is a "maintenance plan" for your Microsoft software products that are not SaaS (so MS office, Windows desktop, Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Server, etc.)
Basically, if you buy software the non-SA way, you pay for it and then... that's it. One time cost, and that's all you pay and.. that's all you get. It's very straightforward.
With SA, you get several benefits, but essentially there is one big one that is what SA is really about - you pay a small amount annually and you get upgrade rights. So, as long as you maintain your SA on a product, it changes it from...
Non-SA: "I bought Windows Server 2016!"
to
SA: "I bought Windows Server!"
You no longer care about the "version" that you buy, your SA means you have the right to use any recent version (so right now that's something like 2008 R2, 2012, 2012 R2, 2016, and 2019 in a few weeks.) You can deploy any of them that make sense today, and upgrade anytime that you want. No more "paying for the next version."
You get lots of silly extra like training and "support", but it's all minor. Sometimes certain features like maybe VDI are included with SA only, in those cases it can be a bigger deal.
In the Windows world, SA is often just considered a part of the license cost and most people ignore that there is even another way to buy Windows because it's the cheaper way to keep your Windows running healthy. Paying for each new version is more costly and more complex. But in the extreme small business arena, skipping SA is common and is often a major contributing factor to finding shops with extremely outdated systems because the pain of the full cost for the next upgrade was too much, but SA makes it a small, annual fee every year instead which is way easier to budget for.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@dave247 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:
Now to make things more complicated, if you didn't want cluster mobility, but only failover, you can move to SA licensing which isn't cheap, but is way cheaper than this. But if you wanted that, the three node cluster doesn't make sense. So based on the example, SA doesn't cover the goals.
So this is the first time I think I've heard of Software Assurance, and I've just looked it up and done a bit of reading. I understood the words that I read, but it's not really clear to me what exactly SA is or how it could help me in this situation... would you mind helping me understand?
SA is a "maintenance plan" for your Microsoft software products that are not SaaS (so MS office, Windows desktop, Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Server, etc.)
Basically, if you buy software the non-SA way, you pay for it and then... that's it. One time cost, and that's all you pay and.. that's all you get. It's very straightforward.
With SA, you get several benefits, but essentially there is one big one that is what SA is really about - you pay a small amount annually and you get upgrade rights. So, as long as you maintain your SA on a product, it changes it from...
Non-SA: "I bought Windows Server 2016!"
to
SA: "I bought Windows Server!"
You no longer care about the "version" that you buy, your SA means you have the right to use any recent version (so right now that's something like 2008 R2, 2012, 2012 R2, 2016, and 2019 in a few weeks.) You can deploy any of them that make sense today, and upgrade anytime that you want. No more "paying for the next version."
You get lots of silly extra like training and "support", but it's all minor. Sometimes certain features like maybe VDI are included with SA only, in those cases it can be a bigger deal.
In the Windows world, SA is often just considered a part of the license cost and most people ignore that there is even another way to buy Windows because it's the cheaper way to keep your Windows running healthy. Paying for each new version is more costly and more complex. But in the extreme small business arena, skipping SA is common and is often a major contributing factor to finding shops with extremely outdated systems because the pain of the full cost for the next upgrade was too much, but SA makes it a small, annual fee every year instead which is way easier to budget for.
So, does that mean if I installed 2008 R2 several years ago, with SA, I can move that server to a 2016 box for free? Otherwise I still don't understand.
-
@dave247 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:
@dave247 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:
Now to make things more complicated, if you didn't want cluster mobility, but only failover, you can move to SA licensing which isn't cheap, but is way cheaper than this. But if you wanted that, the three node cluster doesn't make sense. So based on the example, SA doesn't cover the goals.
So this is the first time I think I've heard of Software Assurance, and I've just looked it up and done a bit of reading. I understood the words that I read, but it's not really clear to me what exactly SA is or how it could help me in this situation... would you mind helping me understand?
SA is a "maintenance plan" for your Microsoft software products that are not SaaS (so MS office, Windows desktop, Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Server, etc.)
Basically, if you buy software the non-SA way, you pay for it and then... that's it. One time cost, and that's all you pay and.. that's all you get. It's very straightforward.
With SA, you get several benefits, but essentially there is one big one that is what SA is really about - you pay a small amount annually and you get upgrade rights. So, as long as you maintain your SA on a product, it changes it from...
Non-SA: "I bought Windows Server 2016!"
to
SA: "I bought Windows Server!"
You no longer care about the "version" that you buy, your SA means you have the right to use any recent version (so right now that's something like 2008 R2, 2012, 2012 R2, 2016, and 2019 in a few weeks.) You can deploy any of them that make sense today, and upgrade anytime that you want. No more "paying for the next version."
You get lots of silly extra like training and "support", but it's all minor. Sometimes certain features like maybe VDI are included with SA only, in those cases it can be a bigger deal.
In the Windows world, SA is often just considered a part of the license cost and most people ignore that there is even another way to buy Windows because it's the cheaper way to keep your Windows running healthy. Paying for each new version is more costly and more complex. But in the extreme small business arena, skipping SA is common and is often a major contributing factor to finding shops with extremely outdated systems because the pain of the full cost for the next upgrade was too much, but SA makes it a small, annual fee every year instead which is way easier to budget for.
So, does that mean if I installed 2008 R2 several years ago, with SA, I can move that server to a 2016 box for free? Otherwise I still don't understand.
Yes. Where "free" = "already paid for SA". So no additional cost.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Trying to correctly understand core licensing in a vmware environment:
@dave247 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:
@dave247 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:
Now to make things more complicated, if you didn't want cluster mobility, but only failover, you can move to SA licensing which isn't cheap, but is way cheaper than this. But if you wanted that, the three node cluster doesn't make sense. So based on the example, SA doesn't cover the goals.
So this is the first time I think I've heard of Software Assurance, and I've just looked it up and done a bit of reading. I understood the words that I read, but it's not really clear to me what exactly SA is or how it could help me in this situation... would you mind helping me understand?
SA is a "maintenance plan" for your Microsoft software products that are not SaaS (so MS office, Windows desktop, Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Server, etc.)
Basically, if you buy software the non-SA way, you pay for it and then... that's it. One time cost, and that's all you pay and.. that's all you get. It's very straightforward.
With SA, you get several benefits, but essentially there is one big one that is what SA is really about - you pay a small amount annually and you get upgrade rights. So, as long as you maintain your SA on a product, it changes it from...
Non-SA: "I bought Windows Server 2016!"
to
SA: "I bought Windows Server!"
You no longer care about the "version" that you buy, your SA means you have the right to use any recent version (so right now that's something like 2008 R2, 2012, 2012 R2, 2016, and 2019 in a few weeks.) You can deploy any of them that make sense today, and upgrade anytime that you want. No more "paying for the next version."
You get lots of silly extra like training and "support", but it's all minor. Sometimes certain features like maybe VDI are included with SA only, in those cases it can be a bigger deal.
In the Windows world, SA is often just considered a part of the license cost and most people ignore that there is even another way to buy Windows because it's the cheaper way to keep your Windows running healthy. Paying for each new version is more costly and more complex. But in the extreme small business arena, skipping SA is common and is often a major contributing factor to finding shops with extremely outdated systems because the pain of the full cost for the next upgrade was too much, but SA makes it a small, annual fee every year instead which is way easier to budget for.
So, does that mean if I installed 2008 R2 several years ago, with SA, I can move that server to a 2016 box for free? Otherwise I still don't understand.
Yes. Where "free" = "already paid for SA". So no additional cost.
but... doesn't that like circumvent the new core licensing??
-
This is how I got the go ahead to look into Docker. We were looking at datacenter licences for our new IIS project. However, you can have unlimited windows containers on Windows Standard
-
@dave247 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:
@dave247 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:
@dave247 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:
Now to make things more complicated, if you didn't want cluster mobility, but only failover, you can move to SA licensing which isn't cheap, but is way cheaper than this. But if you wanted that, the three node cluster doesn't make sense. So based on the example, SA doesn't cover the goals.
So this is the first time I think I've heard of Software Assurance, and I've just looked it up and done a bit of reading. I understood the words that I read, but it's not really clear to me what exactly SA is or how it could help me in this situation... would you mind helping me understand?
SA is a "maintenance plan" for your Microsoft software products that are not SaaS (so MS office, Windows desktop, Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Server, etc.)
Basically, if you buy software the non-SA way, you pay for it and then... that's it. One time cost, and that's all you pay and.. that's all you get. It's very straightforward.
With SA, you get several benefits, but essentially there is one big one that is what SA is really about - you pay a small amount annually and you get upgrade rights. So, as long as you maintain your SA on a product, it changes it from...
Non-SA: "I bought Windows Server 2016!"
to
SA: "I bought Windows Server!"
You no longer care about the "version" that you buy, your SA means you have the right to use any recent version (so right now that's something like 2008 R2, 2012, 2012 R2, 2016, and 2019 in a few weeks.) You can deploy any of them that make sense today, and upgrade anytime that you want. No more "paying for the next version."
You get lots of silly extra like training and "support", but it's all minor. Sometimes certain features like maybe VDI are included with SA only, in those cases it can be a bigger deal.
In the Windows world, SA is often just considered a part of the license cost and most people ignore that there is even another way to buy Windows because it's the cheaper way to keep your Windows running healthy. Paying for each new version is more costly and more complex. But in the extreme small business arena, skipping SA is common and is often a major contributing factor to finding shops with extremely outdated systems because the pain of the full cost for the next upgrade was too much, but SA makes it a small, annual fee every year instead which is way easier to budget for.
So, does that mean if I installed 2008 R2 several years ago, with SA, I can move that server to a 2016 box for free? Otherwise I still don't understand.
Yes. Where "free" = "already paid for SA". So no additional cost.
but... doesn't that like circumvent the new core licensing??
No. It converted to 16 cores. This is also assuming that you have maintained SA this whole time. It is a yearly cost.
