Windows Server 2016 Pricing
-
@thwr Yep, that'd be the easiest way to license each server.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just an example: In case I got two servers with dual hexa-core Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
You have an extra 2 in there. Dual sext-core procs is 2 (procs) x 6 (cores) = 12 cores total.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just an example: In case I got two servers with dual hexa-core Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Where did the extra 2* come from?
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just checking what I would need to license Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Edition
As far as I can tell:
- A minimum 16 ("physical") cores must be licensed per server
- Hyper-Threading does not count towards the number of cores
Just an example: In case I got two servers with a dual hexacore Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Now, you can by a 24 core license. licensing is sold in packs of 2 cores with the minimum being 16 cores.
Uhm, really? Could you provide a link?
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just an example: In case I got two servers with dual hexa-core Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Where did the extra 2* come from?
2 servers * 2 CPUs * 6 cores per CPU
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just an example: In case I got two servers with dual hexa-core Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Where did the extra 2* come from?
2 servers * 2 cores * 6 cores each
Each server has to be licensed separately. So you have to look at them one at a time, you can't lump them together.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just checking what I would need to license Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Edition
As far as I can tell:
- A minimum 16 ("physical") cores must be licensed per server
- Hyper-Threading does not count towards the number of cores
Just an example: In case I got two servers with a dual hexacore Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Correct. 16 is the minimum and only cores are counted. Cores are physical things, logical thread engines are not.
Great thanks. So I could also buy octa cores for the same result.
Correct, the MS Licensing for 2016 is designed to treat dual processors and eight cores as the "standard" that they intended for "power licensing" in the 2012 / 2012 R2 era. Because the power of systems has shifted from processor count to core count they are shifting their licensing to reflect this. So octa-core processors are the hot new item as they make, by far, the most sense for the average shop running Windows 2016. The best bang for the buck.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just an example: In case I got two servers with dual hexa-core Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Where did the extra 2* come from?
2 servers * 2 CPUs * 6 cores per CPU
That's confusing. Licensing is for a server.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just checking what I would need to license Windows Server 2016 Datacenter Edition
As far as I can tell:
- A minimum 16 ("physical") cores must be licensed per server
- Hyper-Threading does not count towards the number of cores
Just an example: In case I got two servers with a dual hexacore Xeons (2 * 2 * 6 = 24 cores total), I would have to buy licenses for 32 cores (or 16 two-core packages). Is that correct?
Now, you can by a 24 core license. licensing is sold in packs of 2 cores with the minimum being 16 cores.
Uhm, really? Could you provide a link?
Higher in this thread. https://mangolassi.it/post/228422
That post links to Microsoft's document.
-
That said, because you have 2 servers, you are buying a 16 core bundle for each server.
So the 24 core thing is not relevant to you.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
That said, because you have 2 servers, you are buying a 16 core bundle for each server.
So the 24 core thing is not relevant to you.
Yeah ok, my intention was to calculate the price for a small two host cluster. Already wondered that Microsoft offers a 24 core bundle that you could split up between hosts. But I understand that you can't do that, so I'll probably go for dual octa-core hosts for my next setup and 2x 16 core licences.
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
Sure, but they also are seeing less revenue because what used to require 2+ servers now only requires one. So the old licensing tied to processor sockets limited the revenue from new clients. So they changed licensing to match the modern situation. Must customers will be paying nearly the same as they did in the past. The cost for the 16 core license is nearly the same as the old Dual Socket license. Only if you need the power of additional cores for the business do you buy them, and when you buy them, you pay pay MS commensurate fee.
-
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
Very hard to license based on RAM. Could be done, I suppose.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@thwr said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does Microsoft even know that CPU is often not a bottleneck in (most) scenarios?
Sure, but they also are seeing less revenue because what used to require 2+ servers now only requires one. So the old licensing tied to processor sockets limited the revenue from new clients. So they changed licensing to match the modern situation. Must customers will be paying nearly the same as they did in the past. The cost for the 16 core license is nearly the same as the old Dual Socket license. Only if you need the power of additional cores for the business do you buy them, and when you buy them, you pay pay MS commensurate fee.
What he meant is that they are in a legacy model where the degree to which Windows is used was determined mostly by CPU. But today it is mostly by RAM.
-
So, for example, if you get dial octa-core procs, get hyper-threading, maybe Intel boosts to 4x or 8x hyperthreading instead of just 2x like now, add insane amounts of SSD, add GPU and RAID cards to offload all possible computational work, add a few TB of fast RAM and suddenly you have the power of a mainframe with only a minimal Windows license. You might pull off 100 VMs on that little 16 core box. The CPU is so seldom the bottleneck that your workloads are almost never determined by it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
So, for example, if you get dial octa-core procs, get hyper-threading, maybe Intel boosts to 4x or 8x hyperthreading instead of just 2x like now, add insane amounts of SSD, add GPU and RAID cards to offload all possible computational work, add a few TB of fast RAM and suddenly you have the power of a mainframe with only a minimal Windows license. You might pull off 100 VMs on that little 16 core box. The CPU is so seldom the bottleneck that your workloads are almost never determined by it.
LOL - of course, and when MS sees that that is happening, I'm sure we'll see new licensing models again - assuming they haven't decided to give up on the charge for OS model and instead just give it away and solely charge for support or some other revenue stream.
-
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
-
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
-
@travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
That's kind of the same thing
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@jt1001001 said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Didn't VmWare try licensing by RAM not too terribly long ago?
I don't think they licensing by RAM so much as limit the amount of RAM you're allowed to use according to license type. The free tier was really quite limited, is it still 128GB?
That's kind of the same thing
That is also not very limited at all. Most SMB do not have that much in their servers. If they have more, they bought too much.
