What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I'm considering getting half a cow. . . The price per pound is $3.95 . . . Not sure if I have enough freeze room. . .
I take delivery on 1/2 a cow this week. Around 65 lbs. But I will can most of it not freeze it.
You're only getting 65 lbs of meat from half a cow? Wow, tinny cow, even without growth hormones.
I am really only taking 1/4ish of it. I do have to pay for the full half however.
Pay for the meat, or processing of it? It sounds like you're getting ripped off if you're paying for half the cow + processing and only getting 1/4 of the cow.
I agreed to half a cow long ago but decided I didn't want all the meat. They will donate the reset to someone in need. So not getting ripped off.
Well at least the food is going to a shelter or something.
I hope they aren't just going to consume it themselves, but actually provide it to a shelter or food bank.
-
Good morning everyone!
-
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
-
@stacksofplates said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Romo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Trying to learn about the pros and cons of the various image formats (qcow2, raw, lvm) available for my kvm hypervisor. @stacksofplates any opinion and/or some benchmarks you can share?
I don't usually use raw images unless I'm just testing something and don't care. Qcow2 is the slowest, but if you preallocate, it gets much faster. You can preallocate the metadata or do a full preallocation. If you do full though, I believe you lose thin provisioning.
I don't have anything currently on volumes. I did for a while, but I don't have anything right now that needs that speed. I definitely go with volumes over raw files. Volumes give you all of the added benefits of LVM (snapshots, thin provisioning, etc).
This should probably be it's own post written as an article.
-
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I'm considering getting half a cow. . . The price per pound is $3.95 . . . Not sure if I have enough freeze room. . .
I take delivery on 1/2 a cow this week. Around 65 lbs. But I will can most of it not freeze it.
You're only getting 65 lbs of meat from half a cow? Wow, tinny cow, even without growth hormones.
I am really only taking 1/4ish of it. I do have to pay for the full half however.
You are getting ripped off. Hugely! - I grew up with this stuff. Typically, from a full grown animal, you'll get 440 LBS of freezer ready beef. (220 lbs for half, 110 lbs for 1/4) - From this, about half will be ground beef, and the rest in cuts such as roasts, steaks, ribs, brisket, and tenderloin.
Here's about how much freezer space is required for 1/4 cow:
http://www.clovermeadowsbeef.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/quarter-cow.jpg
Processing charges vary, but generally about $0.50/pound hanging weight, or about $475 total for the average cow (700lbs hanging weight + kill charge)
If you're only getting approximately 65lbs and still have to pay the processing for 1/2 cow, you're likely paying more than store prices for the same beef.
Just sayin'
Yeah I know I am paying more, but I also KNOW what they have been feeding the cow (these are friends) and know how they treat them. Because of my food allergies knowing that the cow hasn't been fed certain things or been given antibiotics is a big deal.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
I've already seen a shift of local businesses that I know of who heard of this change a while back, and have started to move away from Microsoft products.
The Microsoft tax is a literal nothing in overall terms, but the CALs + the tax are what bothers most people.
And the whole thing about "you might pay more to license the new OS if you utilize high-density, multi-core processors. "
Well who is honestly purchasing servers today with 8 or less physical cores? My lab has more cores than that, and the server is from 2009!
Every server I have purchased since 2010 are dual processor eight core xeons. So 8 hyperthread cores also
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
They won't. Hardware vendors are going to build servers to accommodate this licensing so very few people will actually realize it.
That and, you know, people just don't care.
-
Gotcha - No worries. Enjoy your steaks
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
I've already seen a shift of local businesses that I know of who heard of this change a while back, and have started to move away from Microsoft products.
The Microsoft tax is a literal nothing in overall terms, but the CALs + the tax are what bothers most people.
And the whole thing about "you might pay more to license the new OS if you utilize high-density, multi-core processors. "
Well who is honestly purchasing servers today with 8 or less physical cores? My lab has more cores than that, and the server is from 2009!
Every server I have purchased since 2010 are dual processor eight core xeons. So 8 hyperthread cores also
I won't say every, but most, for sure. I'm not seeing many with more than eight cores per proc in the SMB. Who needs more than that on an Intel chip. Now if buying AMD, sure.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
Correct, you don't have to license two processors, but they only sell a 2 processor license.
So if you have a server with a single processor and want 2016, you are still paying for that second CPU.
No they sell 2-core packs
At a minimum of 8 cores for each physical processor. So you'd have to purchase 4 packs.
(You are correct though, sold in 2 core packs)
• A minimum of 16 core licenses is required for each server.
• A minimum of 8 core licenses is required for each physical processor. -
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
8 core min per processor. 16 core min per physical server.
-
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
Correct, you don't have to license two processors, but they only sell a 2 processor license.
So if you have a server with a single processor and want 2016, you are still paying for that second CPU.
No they sell 2-core packs
At a minimum of 8 cores for each physical processor. So you'd have to purchase 4 packs.
(You are correct though, sold in 2 core packs)
• A minimum of 16 core licenses is required for each server.
• A minimum of 8 core licenses is required for each physical processor.I know I am correct, we already talked about this a week ago in another thread.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
8 core min per processor. 16 core min per physical server.
Which means you could purchase a server with a single processor and only 8 cores (you'd be insane too) and have to purchase licensing for the 8/16 minimums.
-
@pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.
Why not? The procs aren't redundant until you get into enterprise RAS features in the $50K or higher server range. So you actually take on more risk, rather than less, with two procs because there is more to fail. And dual procs are less efficient than one (about 1% less.) So unless you are using the cores, it's not to your benefit. It raises the cost of hardware and raises software overhead and increases risk.
That's why vendors like IBM, Oracle, Fujitsu and Scale all target single proc space heavily - the dual proc thing is partially a vestige of the "low CPU power" era combined with legacy Microsoft licensing that arose from that era. If you are on UNIX, whether entry level servers or massive RISC systems, single proc boxes are the go to systems until you need more power than a single proc can provide and in the RISC space that's way, way bigger than two Intel procs in the SMB space.
-
-
@dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
All the stuff I've read said licensing is the number of cores was all that mattered.
I think that this is true. This will actually push the sixteen core single proc systems I would guess.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.
That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one
Yeah, they've been very unclear on that. If so, it will put AMD back on the map, but only for the single proc, 16 core use case.
-
I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.
Would AMD do that? They weren't too far away from being on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago. I'd be surprised if Oracle or IBM would be interested in a partnership at this point.
-
@coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.
Would AMD do that? They weren't too far away from being on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago. I'd be surprised if Oracle or IBM would be interested in a partnership at this point.
Why would AMD being on the "brink" be of any actual concern to IBM or Oracle? That seems to be an odd thing for them to care about, especially if it was years ago. I don't see the relevance.
Would AMD? They've already turned to ARM and are leaving the AMD64 space in many areas. If they want to compete in the Intel/Microsoft world of AMD64 platforms they need to do something. Either get out completely or hit back with something amazing.
As AMD is one of the big RISC vendors now along with IBM and Oracle, it would make sense for them to work together.
