ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Windows Server 2016 Licensing Info

    IT Discussion
    microsoft windows windows server 2016 licen
    11
    75
    21.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • K
      KOOLER Vendor @scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      @scottalanmiller said:

      @brianlittlejohn said:

      @mlnews Thats not too bad...

      It's pretty bad. Even NTG Lab's old lab gear has more than eight cores per proc. This will likely make the cost of deploying Windows skyrocket unless people are custom buying special, small servers just for running Windows.

      There are some guys (incl. StarWind) who had built their products around an idea "let's have less sockets but more cores as sockets are licensed and cores are free". Now it turns the idea is WRONG and... we'll just get CPUs with a higher clock rates / more memory instead of paying license tax to Microsoft. We'll be good, customers will get their performance and IOPS in some other way they expected and it will be MSFT who's going to lose $$$.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        KOOLER Vendor
        last edited by

        Can anybody explain me where did $6,000+ came from?!!?

        http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/windows-server-2016/

        (Yes, I've read MSFT FAQ)

        Windows Server 2016 Editions
        Datacenter Edition
        Standard Edition
        Core functionality of Windows Server

        OSEs/Hyper-V containers*
        Unlimited
        2
        Windows Server containers
        Unlimited
        Unlimited
        Nano Server

        New storage features including Storage Spaces Direct and Storage Replica**

        New Shielded Virtual Machines and Host Guardian Service**

        New networking stack**

        Licensing Model***
        Core + CAL
        Core + CAL
        Price+
        $6,155
        $882

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • S
          scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          Yeah, the industry has put a lot of effort into all kinds of both software and hardware research based around a pricing model that has now changed.

          The real lesson here is, as it has been many times in the past, that Windows is the wrong place to be making investments when you can help it.

          K 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • M
            MattSpeller
            last edited by

            My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit

            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • S
              scottalanmiller @MattSpeller
              last edited by

              @MattSpeller said:

              My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit

              Don't you guys get most everything from MS for free anyway?

              M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • M
                MattSpeller @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said:

                @MattSpeller said:

                My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit

                Don't you guys get most everything from MS for free anyway?

                Well, not free, but certainly "less than full price"

                Even still, $75k USD + tax + canada tax (always charge more than the $ exchange) = AHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  mlnews
                  last edited by

                  Your non-profit licensing costs are $75K in MS licenses? That's crazy!

                  M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • M
                    MattSpeller @mlnews
                    last edited by MattSpeller

                    @mlnews no no, if we needed to buy licenses at full pop for all our servers it'd be ~75k.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • M
                      mlnews
                      last edited by

                      Oh okay, that makes much more sense.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • J
                        JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        @BRRABill said:

                        I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.

                        A win for SOHO, LOL.

                        But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.

                        Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.

                        M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • M
                          MattSpeller @JaredBusch
                          last edited by

                          @JaredBusch said:

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          @BRRABill said:

                          I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.

                          A win for SOHO, LOL.

                          But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.

                          Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.

                          Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.

                          J S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • J
                            Jason Banned @MattSpeller
                            last edited by

                            @MattSpeller said:

                            @JaredBusch said:

                            @scottalanmiller said:

                            @BRRABill said:

                            I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.

                            A win for SOHO, LOL.

                            But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.

                            Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.

                            Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.

                            Super Dense means a bigger single point of failure when it's for a small environment.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • S
                              scottalanmiller @MattSpeller
                              last edited by

                              @MattSpeller said:

                              @JaredBusch said:

                              @scottalanmiller said:

                              @BRRABill said:

                              I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.

                              A win for SOHO, LOL.

                              But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.

                              Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.

                              Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.

                              @MattSpeller said:

                              @JaredBusch said:

                              @scottalanmiller said:

                              @BRRABill said:

                              I was a little nervous with my new server I just bought, but it's only 6C.

                              A win for SOHO, LOL.

                              But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.

                              Exactly. it means you wasted money buying licensing for cores you do not have. You have no way to buy only enough licensing for the number of cores in your system.

                              Yup! And this will drive really hard consolidation projects again, $6k is a lot to drop on software so your hardware better be worth it. I think we'll see a big rise in the super dense 16 core dual proc server loaded to the tits with RAM and SSD's.

                              I think we will see a boom in the availability and the cost of the 8 core market. And potentially a huge move to extending hyperthreading more like the Sparc architecture. Intel does 1:1 with one HT per physical core. Sparc does 1:7 and 1:15 with seven and fifteen HTs per physical. You could go much, much bigger with less licensing with the Sparc style model now.

                              M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • M
                                MattSpeller @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?

                                J S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J
                                  Jason Banned @MattSpeller
                                  last edited by

                                  @MattSpeller said:

                                  @scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?

                                  He means intel to start making ones with more threads.. Or more likely AMD. Even though it seems most don't buy AMD they are usually the ones making most of the innovations and everyone copies. Intel just slightly improves what AMD does. Heck even an Intel CPU these days is an emulation of an AMD64 cpu.

                                  S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                  • S
                                    scottalanmiller @MattSpeller
                                    last edited by

                                    @MattSpeller said:

                                    @scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?

                                    I don't mean changing the Windows architecture targets but it would encourage Intel and AMD to start looking at designs like how Sparc does it.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • S
                                      scottalanmiller @Jason
                                      last edited by

                                      @Jason said:

                                      @MattSpeller said:

                                      @scottalanmiller wouldn't that be driven by MS to change to support the Sparc procs? Why would they even bother when they can just sit back and make a mint on the Wintel alliance?

                                      He means intel to start making ones with more threads.. Or more likely AMD. Even though it seems most don't buy AMD they are usually the ones making most of the innovations and everyone copies. Intel just slightly improves what AMD does. Heck even an Intel CPU these days is an emulation of an AMD64 cpu.

                                      HT is the one spot where AMD has no experience. Intel invented it and couldn't make it work. Sun figured it out and made it the standard. AMD has avoided it, Intel has stuck with a very rudimentary version. But with this licensing, that could change.

                                      M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • M
                                        MattSpeller @scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller said:

                                        Intel invented it and couldn't make it work.

                                        Oh dear, I just had a PTSD flashback to 130w+ pentium 's

                                        J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • J
                                          Jason Banned @MattSpeller
                                          last edited by

                                          @MattSpeller said:

                                          @scottalanmiller said:

                                          Intel invented it and couldn't make it work.

                                          Oh dear, I just had a PTSD flashback to 130w+ pentium 's

                                          Has intel ever make anything work great that was original to them?

                                          S M 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • S
                                            scottalanmiller @Jason
                                            last edited by

                                            @Jason well there was the Itanium....

                                            I can't really say that with a straight face.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 3 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post