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.
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.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
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?
This is where expensive software sucks people in.... they have two really good emotional ways to get people to keep spending money. First is the sunk cost fallacy, which you mentioned above, that feeling that since you paid for it, you should use it. The second is the belief that it is already paid for and incurs no more cost.
The second is untrue for many reasons. For example, with VMware you have to license it year after year, you pay continuously. And when you want to update, you pay even more. You pay for tools and invest in designs and other decisions around the fact that you have it - indirect investments in whatever design you have. In your case this includes VSAN and Windows licensing investments, at the very least, and probably a few others that haven't been mentioned.
And last, you invest in knowledge. You put your time and effort into learning what you are running currently. Right now, Hyper-V has little downside compared to ESXi. But in three years when your whole team has built all documentation, policies and procedures around ESXi that will be a very different picture.
Running systems always incurs debt. Putting your debt into your future rather than into your past is an important thing to always consider in IT.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset, and can afford Vmware licensing, I'm not sure what the future risk is.
"Can afford" should never be said in IT. IT's role is to find the "best" use for funds, but spend "what can be spent." It's not that any of it isn't affordable, it's what gets you the best environment.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset....
I have a rule of thumb about this... anything that something like this is said, it probably means you should not be on Windows
-
Is Microsoft going to be selling 2 pack core license at the Standard Server License level as well?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
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?
This is where expensive software sucks people in.... they have two really good emotional ways to get people to keep spending money. First is the sunk cost fallacy, which you mentioned above, that feeling that since you paid for it, you should use it. The second is the belief that it is already paid for and incurs no more cost.
The second is untrue for many reasons. For example, with VMware you have to license it year after year, you pay continuously. And when you want to update, you pay even more. You pay for tools and invest in designs and other decisions around the fact that you have it - indirect investments in whatever design you have. In your case this includes VSAN and Windows licensing investments, at the very least, and probably a few others that haven't been mentioned.
And last, you invest in knowledge. You put your time and effort into learning what you are running currently. Right now, Hyper-V has little downside compared to ESXi. But in three years when your whole team has built all documentation, policies and procedures around ESXi that will be a very different picture.
Running systems always incurs debt. Putting your debt into your future rather than into your past is an important thing to always consider in IT.
Thank you, there's a lot of good stuff to chew on in that post.
If I am completely honest and stop making excuses to rationalize our predicament, then yes, you're completely right. It is not too late to stop and rethink this. It would be a MAJOR uphill climb for me vs my manager though, as he is pushing for the VSAN deployment to be operational "yesterday", and I'm 99% there except for licensing.
I would also need to go back to square one in terms of research and education. I am comfortable administering a Vmware environment, I know VSAN pretty well and I've engineered the hardware and network (new 10GbE TOR switches) around VSAN. I have almost no comparable experience in terms of Hyper-V. Could I? Sure. But it's a factor. Like you said, investment in knowledge is a factor. And Vmware is something we already have a comfortable investment in knowledge and experience with.
Side point: Switching horses in midstream to Hyper-V would require using Starwind for the local shared storage component, as I don't think 2016's Storage Spaces Direct is the way we'd want to go. I have no idea what Starwind licensing is like, but wouldn't that be a similar argument about future costs as sticking with Vmware? Either way we will have to continue paying licensing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset....
I have a rule of thumb about this... anything that something like this is said, it probably means you should not be on Windows
See above... We have an unsettling amount of 2003 servers in production.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset....
I have a rule of thumb about this... anything that something like this is said, it probably means you should not be on Windows
See above... We have an unsettling amount of 2003 servers in production.
Perfect time to move away from Windows then. You've made it clear you can't afford it so investing the time and money into moving away from it would pay off in the long run.
The other thing is, your boss doesn't think the organization can afford Server 2016, does the organization (management) feel the same way?
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset....
I have a rule of thumb about this... anything that something like this is said, it probably means you should not be on Windows
See above... We have an unsettling amount of 2003 servers in production.
The question is why do you have those 2003 servers? Lack of funds to upgrade, lack of motivation to upgrade? lack of support from vendors to upgrade?
-
@coliver 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:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset....
I have a rule of thumb about this... anything that something like this is said, it probably means you should not be on Windows
See above... We have an unsettling amount of 2003 servers in production.
Perfect time to move away from Windows then. You've made it clear you can't afford it so investing the time and money into moving away from it would pay off in the long run.
The other thing is, your boss doesn't thing the organization can afford Server 2016, does the organization (management) feel the same way?
Organization has no opinion; he is director of IT and has sole discretion over IT infrastructure budget/purchases.
Moving away from Windows... We have numerous 3rd party vendor applications that are Windows based. Not to mention Exchange, AD, terminal services, etc. If switching to Hyper-V is an uphill climb, what do you think my odds are of pitching a MS exodus?
ETA: I don't think I said that "we can't afford Windows". My reason for bringing up the 2016 licensing bump was to point out that it is a big cost increase for some organizations, not to say that we outright can't afford it. The question is, is it worth it to us? Running a Windows environment has huge value to us. Running 2016 Server in particular, I don't see the value yet. IF we made the decision to switch to Hyper-V, then 2016 would be a no-brainer.
-
@Dashrender 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:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset....
I have a rule of thumb about this... anything that something like this is said, it probably means you should not be on Windows
See above... We have an unsettling amount of 2003 servers in production.
The question is why do you have those 2003 servers? Lack of funds to upgrade, lack of motivation to upgrade? lack of support from vendors to upgrade?
That's a question but it's not the question. Pick a reason.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
And Vmware is something we already have a comfortable investment in knowledge and experience with.
So sunk cost and technical debt are and have been driving decision making already. Which they should be partially, they cannot be ignored, but it is important to recognize that they are debt drivers rather than investment drivers.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Side point: Switching horses in midstream to Hyper-V would require using Starwind for the local shared storage component, as I don't think 2016's Storage Spaces Direct is the way we'd want to go. I have no idea what Starwind licensing is like, but wouldn't that be a similar argument about future costs as sticking with Vmware? Either way we will have to continue paying licensing.
You are correct on all points. Starwinds would introduce cost (maybe, not necessarily, you have a ton of VSAN induced cost there), and SSD is not remotely ready for prime time yet. But even in the worst case, Starwind is fractional compared to VSAN and Hyper-V is totally free compared to... well, anything.
But it sounds like a lot of your costs in hardware terms as well come from VSAN. I would guess that if you left the VMware world, you could reduce to two hosts and go to 100% free Hyper-V and Starwind.
-
Dammit, wrong browser window.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Moving away from Windows... We have numerous 3rd party vendor applications that are Windows based. Not to mention Exchange, AD, terminal services, etc. If switching to Hyper-V is an uphill climb, what do you think my odds are of pitching a MS exodus?
Depends on your pitching skills. If I talked to the people in charge, my reasons for moving off of Windows would probably not only make them move off immediately, but might get someone fired for having used it already
Basically.... wasting money while not being supported. Basically Windows isn't an option as described. It's incredibly obvious that Windows isn't a valid solution in this case and any apps chosen with that dependency are simply not valid options either by logical extension - they depend on things that can't be afforded or supported in the current environment.
Money is being thrown around on things like VMware and VSAN, but there isn't enough to run viable software on top of them. Massive mismatch of expenditures. Something doesn't add up.
I'm pretty confident that if I made a pitch, they'd drop Windows without question. And investigate how they got into the current situation. As a government entity, a good pitch in this case should secure the case because it would mean not following it would call corruption into question.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Running a Windows environment has huge value to us.
What value is that? That you can't get to supported, secure versions generally is an indicator that Windows is a huge negative value, rather than a positive one. Not 100% of the time, but 99%+
-
@mlnews said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Side point: Switching horses in midstream to Hyper-V would require using Starwind for the local shared storage component, as I don't think 2016's Storage Spaces Direct is the way we'd want to go. I have no idea what Starwind licensing is like, but wouldn't that be a similar argument about future costs as sticking with Vmware? Either way we will have to continue paying licensing.
You are correct on all points. Starwinds would introduce cost (maybe, not necessarily, you have a ton of VSAN induced cost there), and SSD is not remotely ready for prime time yet. But even in the worst case, Starwind is fractional compared to VSAN and Hyper-V is totally free compared to... well, anything.
But it sounds like a lot of your costs in hardware terms as well come from VSAN. I would guess that if you left the VMware world, you could reduce to two hosts and go to 100% free Hyper-V and Starwind.
That's what I was thinking as well. VMWare requires at least 3 host for VSAN but recommends 4. 48 VMs aren't really that many and unless you have IOPS number ready you won't really know one way or the other if two hosts can handle what you are speccing 4 hosts for.
