Windows Server 2016 Pricing
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
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?
ESXi 6.0.2 running VSAN and quite a few VMs.
We're in the middle ground between SMB and Enterprise. I can understand a simple SMB just running a handful of VMs never needing more than 2x8. And then a full scale enterprise with many hosts who can negotiate licensing. But we're in the middle... several dozen VMs spread across a handful of hosts.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
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?
ESXi 6.0.2 running VSAN and quite a few VMs.
We're in the middle ground between SMB and Enterprise. I can understand a simple SMB just running a handful of VMs never needing more than 2x8. And then a full scale enterprise with many hosts who can negotiate licensing. But we're in the middle... several dozen VMs spread across a handful of hosts.
Yep, unfortunately you're in the range where this change does the most damage.
-
@coliver said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
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?
ESXi 6.0.2 running VSAN and quite a few VMs.
We're in the middle ground between SMB and Enterprise. I can understand a simple SMB just running a handful of VMs never needing more than 2x8. And then a full scale enterprise with many hosts who can negotiate licensing. But we're in the middle... several dozen VMs spread across a handful of hosts.
Yep, unfortunately you're in the range where this change does the most damage.
i thought I read somewhere that you would get grandfathered in if you are running more cores than the new licensing comes with by default. anyone else read that? Of course this only matters if you have Softwrae Assurance
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
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?
ESXi 6.0.2 running VSAN and quite a few VMs.
We're in the middle ground between SMB and Enterprise. I can understand a simple SMB just running a handful of VMs never needing more than 2x8. And then a full scale enterprise with many hosts who can negotiate licensing. But we're in the middle... several dozen VMs spread across a handful of hosts.
Anything stopping you from changing how that is? It's not as good as having smart licensing, but can't you consolidate to one or two hosts?
-
One of the thing that I think we are seeing, and this makes lots of sense, is that MS is recognizing the fact that Windows is for special case work loads and not for general purpose ones. So they need to focus on increasing the revenue for the fewer, special cases. Linux dominates the general case, sprawl of VMs. This licensing promotes that, sure, but it also recognizes it and embraces it.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
i thought I read somewhere that you would get grandfathered in if you are running more cores than the new licensing comes with by default. anyone else read that?
This is a new host deployment, so there is NO licensing on these hosts currently. Nothing to grandfather. We're coming from OEM licensed physical servers.
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Anything stopping you from changing how that is? It's not as good as having smart licensing, but can't you consolidate to one or two hosts?
Well, since this is a new deployment we just sunk a whole heap of cash into these hosts
But it's not just the sunk cost fallacy at play. Our storage and compute needs are contingent on using at least 3 hosts, and since we're running VSAN, 4 is the true safe minimum, to say nothing of disk groups and future storage growth. We weren't expecting the 2016 per-core licensing cost increase when putting this project together, we assumed flat rate per-proc licensing as usual. It's really too late to change the trajectory of our ESXi deployment at this point, and if we did so just for the sake of this licensing cost we would spend more re-engineering the solution than just eating the licensing bump.
As a completely on-prem, VMware-invested environment, can anyone list any significant reasons not to just stick with 2012?
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
But it's not just the sunk cost fallacy at play. Our storage and compute needs are contingent on using at least 3 hosts, and since we're running VSAN, 4 is the true safe minimum, to say nothing of disk groups and future storage growth.
Why are they contingent on three? And the investment in VSAN might be part of the problem, why choose a product that doesn't match your licensing needs? VSAN is great, but it's a high cost option, on top of VMware ESXi another high cost option that then incurs a higher WIndows cost... it seems like the approach assumes high cost anyway, is the Windows licensing really a problem then?
I totally get that the investment was "just made", but wouldn't alternatives like Hyper-V and Starwind from the MS camp or XenServer have not just eliminated the VMware and VSAN costs, but potentially the Windows ones, too?
-
@crustachio when did your project planning start? I could have swarn it's been at least 6 months since they announced the per core pricing, but didn't list many details.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio when did your project planning start? I could have swarn it's been at least 6 months since they announced the per core pricing, but didn't list many details.
It's been a little while for sure, I thought we knew about it last year but I am probably imagining that.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
As a completely on-prem, VMware-invested environment, can anyone list any significant reasons not to just stick with 2012?
2012 R2 is fine for quite some time. But be sure to question the complete environment, not just one part of it. Why stick with VMware if VMware is causing other problems for you? Nothing against VMware, but it seems to be an issue in your environment.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio when did your project planning start? I could have swarn it's been at least 6 months since they announced the per core pricing, but didn't list many details.
It's been a little while for sure, I thought we knew about it last year but I am probably imagining that.
I tend to agree it was last year - but because I didn't want someone calling me out on it and being wrong, I played it safe.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
It's really too late to change the trajectory of our ESXi deployment at this point, and if we did so just for the sake of this licensing cost we would spend more re-engineering the solution than just eating the licensing bump.
How much engineering is required in that small of an environment? And wouldn't good re-engineering now, even if it has a cost, that saves a lot down the road potentially be well worth it? Cut the technical debt ASAP rather than later once you have accumulated more of it?
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio when did your project planning start? I could have swarn it's been at least 6 months since they announced the per core pricing, but didn't list many details.
It's been a little while for sure, I thought we knew about it last year but I am probably imagining that.
I tend to agree it was last year - but because I didn't want someone calling me out on it and being wrong, I played it safe.
2012 R2 could be two years old, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
But it's not just the sunk cost fallacy at play. Our storage and compute needs are contingent on using at least 3 hosts, and since we're running VSAN, 4 is the true safe minimum, to say nothing of disk groups and future storage growth.
Why are they contingent on three? And the investment in VSAN might be part of the problem, why choose a product that doesn't match your licensing needs? VSAN is great, but it's a high cost option, on top of VMware ESXi another high cost option that then incurs a higher WIndows cost... it seems like the approach assumes high cost anyway, is the Windows licensing really a problem then?
I totally get that the investment was "just made", but wouldn't alternatives like Hyper-V and Starwind from the MS camp or XenServer have not just eliminated the VMware and VSAN costs, but potentially the Windows ones, too?
We're local government and get VMware products for very, very low cost vs list. My manager is not confident in Hyper-V as a solution so never gave it a full shake. In hindsight, sure, Hyper-V + Starwind might be cost competitive, especially with Windows licensing in view. Not sure if there's anything I can do about that now, however.
-
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
We're local government
And... We're out.
Eh?
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
But it's not just the sunk cost fallacy at play. Our storage and compute needs are contingent on using at least 3 hosts, and since we're running VSAN, 4 is the true safe minimum, to say nothing of disk groups and future storage growth.
Why are they contingent on three? And the investment in VSAN might be part of the problem, why choose a product that doesn't match your licensing needs? VSAN is great, but it's a high cost option, on top of VMware ESXi another high cost option that then incurs a higher WIndows cost... it seems like the approach assumes high cost anyway, is the Windows licensing really a problem then?
I totally get that the investment was "just made", but wouldn't alternatives like Hyper-V and Starwind from the MS camp or XenServer have not just eliminated the VMware and VSAN costs, but potentially the Windows ones, too?
We're local government and get VMware products for very, very low cost vs list. My manager is not confident in Hyper-V as a solution so never gave it a full shake. In hindsight, sure, Hyper-V + Starwind might be cost competitive, especially with Windows licensing in view. Not sure if there's anything I can do about that now, however.
How would Windows licensing play into this? Seems like an odd thing to include in the view. VMWare is going to cost more no matter what you don't have to include the additional cost of Windows licenses.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
But it's not just the sunk cost fallacy at play. Our storage and compute needs are contingent on using at least 3 hosts, and since we're running VSAN, 4 is the true safe minimum, to say nothing of disk groups and future storage growth.
Why are they contingent on three? And the investment in VSAN might be part of the problem, why choose a product that doesn't match your licensing needs? VSAN is great, but it's a high cost option, on top of VMware ESXi another high cost option that then incurs a higher WIndows cost... it seems like the approach assumes high cost anyway, is the Windows licensing really a problem then?
I totally get that the investment was "just made", but wouldn't alternatives like Hyper-V and Starwind from the MS camp or XenServer have not just eliminated the VMware and VSAN costs, but potentially the Windows ones, too?
We're local government and get VMware products for very, very low cost vs list. My manager is not confident in Hyper-V as a solution so never gave it a full shake. In hindsight, sure, Hyper-V + Starwind might be cost competitive, especially with Windows licensing in view. Not sure if there's anything I can do about that now, however.
So he believes in Microsoft enough to depend on them, but not enough to depend on them all the way
Hyper-V is definitely not proven like ESXi is, nor is it "as good." But Xen is more mature and just as proven as ESXi and totally free as well.
VMware cheap is good and makes it hard to beat. But if it is free, then where is the real issue? Just modify the hardware slightly, reduce compute load to two hosts. You have a light workload, right? Why the need for so many compute hosts?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
It's really too late to change the trajectory of our ESXi deployment at this point, and if we did so just for the sake of this licensing cost we would spend more re-engineering the solution than just eating the licensing bump.
How much engineering is required in that small of an environment? And wouldn't good re-engineering now, even if it has a cost, that saves a lot down the road potentially be well worth it? Cut the technical debt ASAP rather than later once you have accumulated more of it?
I agree in hypothetical terms, but as the environment is already bought and paid for, save Windows licensing, what's the "lot of down the road cost" we risk suffering?
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset, and can afford Vmware licensing, I'm not sure what the future risk is.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
But it's not just the sunk cost fallacy at play. Our storage and compute needs are contingent on using at least 3 hosts, and since we're running VSAN, 4 is the true safe minimum, to say nothing of disk groups and future storage growth.
Why are they contingent on three? And the investment in VSAN might be part of the problem, why choose a product that doesn't match your licensing needs? VSAN is great, but it's a high cost option, on top of VMware ESXi another high cost option that then incurs a higher WIndows cost... it seems like the approach assumes high cost anyway, is the Windows licensing really a problem then?
I totally get that the investment was "just made", but wouldn't alternatives like Hyper-V and Starwind from the MS camp or XenServer have not just eliminated the VMware and VSAN costs, but potentially the Windows ones, too?
We're local government and get VMware products for very, very low cost vs list. My manager is not confident in Hyper-V as a solution so never gave it a full shake. In hindsight, sure, Hyper-V + Starwind might be cost competitive, especially with Windows licensing in view. Not sure if there's anything I can do about that now, however.
So he believes in Microsoft enough to depend on them, but not enough to depend on them all the way
Something like that, yes. We still have 2003 DC's, so......... no comment.
Hyper-V is definitely not proven like ESXi is, nor is it "as good." But Xen is more mature and just as proven as ESXi and totally free as well.
VMware cheap is good and makes it hard to beat. But if it is free, then where is the real issue? Just modify the hardware slightly, reduce compute load to two hosts. You have a light workload, right? Why the need for so many compute hosts?
What's your definition of light workload?
We're looking at 48 VMs out of the gate, including a couple not-insignificant SQL servers, plus an immediate Exchange server.
