Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing

[Kelly]

Those are list prices, but Microsoft always incentivizes the channel by making their MSRP much higher than it needs to be.

[DustinB3403]

@kelly said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

Those are list prices, but Microsoft always incentivizes the channel by making their MSRP much higher than it needs to be.

Just like with Health Insurance. . .

[DustinB3403]

Very fitting.

Youtube Video

[scottalanmiller]

@kelly said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

Those are list prices, but Microsoft always incentivizes the channel by making their MSRP much higher than it needs to be.

yes, which is weird, because it scares customers away.

[JaredBusch]

@scottalanmiller Standard - per core pricing for 8 cores would be 4 x 2 core packs that cost $3,717 each.

For a total MSRP of $14,868.

That is if SQL Server requires you to license all physical cores or not. I never looked. I assume it does, but I cannot say it does.

[JaredBusch]

@jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller Standard - per core pricing for 8 cores would be 4 x 2 core packs that cost $3,717 each.

For a total MSRP of $14,868.

That is if SQL Server requires you to license all physical cores or not. I never looked. I assume it does, but I cannot say it does.

Well I'll be fucked. You can license per virtual core.

Minimum is 4 cores (physical or virtual).
Physical, you license all cores.
Virtual, you license per vCore assigned to the VM.
https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/C/0/BC0B2EA7-D99D-42FB-9439-2C56880CAFF4/SQL_Server_2017_Licensing_Datasheet.pdf

[DustinB3403]

Based on this is looks like they operate with the same per-core fashion as everywhere else.

**PER CORE:** Gives customers a more precise measure of
computing power and a more consistent licensing metric,
regardless of whether solutions are deployed on physical
servers on-premises, or in virtual or cloud environments.

• Core based licensing is appropriate when customers are
unable to count users/devices, have Internet/Extranet
workloads or systems that integrate with external facing
workloads.

• To license a physical server—when running SQL Server in
a physical OSE—all physical cores on the server must be
licensed.

• A minimum of four core licenses are required for each
physical processor on the server.

Direct download Licensing Datasheet

[scottalanmiller]

@jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller Standard - per core pricing for 8 cores would be 4 x 2 core packs that cost $3,717 each.

For a total MSRP of $14,868.

That is if SQL Server requires you to license all physical cores or not. I never looked. I assume it does, but I cannot say it does.

Well I'll be fucked. You can license per virtual core.

Minimum is 4 cores (physical or virtual).
Physical, you license all cores.
Virtual, you license per vCore assigned to the VM.
https://download.microsoft.com/download/B/C/0/BC0B2EA7-D99D-42FB-9439-2C56880CAFF4/SQL_Server_2017_Licensing_Datasheet.pdf

When did THIS change?? WTF

[scottalanmiller]

@jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core.

[DustinB3403]

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core.

Don't get bogged down in the semantics, you license each vCPU in the guest.

[scottalanmiller]

@dustinb3403 said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core.

Don't get bogged down in the semantics, you license each vCPU in the guest.

But traditionally, it WAS that semantics that determined the licensing.

[JaredBusch]

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core.

a vCPU has vCores. Always. It might just be one. That is how it works.

[Obsolesce]

It was like 2 years ago, and it was MS SQL 2014, we licensed a VM (4 vCPU) and it was not anywhere near $30k. If I remember correctly, it was only a few thousand dollars, unlimited users, 4 vCPU.

[scottalanmiller]

@jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core.

a vCPU has vCores. Always. It might just be one. That is how it works.

Not in any system I've seen. What people call vCores are actually vCPUs. The vCPU might tell the OS it has multiple cores, but the idea of a vCore has never existed, only vCPUs. Vmware, KVM, etc. all the same. Core means physical, it's like having a physical virtual, it cancels itself out.

[Obsolesce]

For MS SQL Server 2014, but may still apply:

[scottalanmiller]

@obsolesce said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

For MS SQL Server 2014, but may still apply:

So at some point, MS made a new, industry conflicting term. vCPU has been standard and means something at the hypervisor level. The MS term is an MS only term.

[Obsolesce]

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@obsolesce said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

For MS SQL Server 2014, but may still apply:

So at some point, MS made a new, industry conflicting term. vCPU has been standard and means something at the hypervisor level. The MS term is an MS only term.

I also see this:

So if you have hyper-threading enabled on your Hyper-V host, and you give the VM 2 vCPUs, you need to license for 4 cores.

Edit: This is also for SQL 2014, not sure about 2017.

[scottalanmiller]

@obsolesce said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@obsolesce said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

For MS SQL Server 2014, but may still apply:

So at some point, MS made a new, industry conflicting term. vCPU has been standard and means something at the hypervisor level. The MS term is an MS only term.

I also see this:

So if you have hyper-threading enabled on your Hyper-V host, and you give the VM 2 vCPUs, you need to license for 4 cores.

Edit: This is also for SQL 2014, not sure about 2017.

That's tough as most deployments, people don't know what is supporting the vCPU. It's also confusing that this seems to ONLY apply with Hyperthreading in one case, but multiple cores in the second. Why does the HT get mentioned, given the second statement?

[Obsolesce]

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@obsolesce said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@obsolesce said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

For MS SQL Server 2014, but may still apply:

So at some point, MS made a new, industry conflicting term. vCPU has been standard and means something at the hypervisor level. The MS term is an MS only term.

I also see this:

So if you have hyper-threading enabled on your Hyper-V host, and you give the VM 2 vCPUs, you need to license for 4 cores.

Edit: This is also for SQL 2014, not sure about 2017.

That's tough as most deployments, people don't know what is supporting the vCPU. It's also confusing that this seems to ONLY apply with Hyperthreading in one case, but multiple cores in the second. Why does the HT get mentioned, given the second statement?

Who knows.

But here you go, just found this for 2017, which also confirms the above:

[JaredBusch]

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@scottalanmiller said in Verifying MS SQL Server 2017 Licensing:

@jaredbusch one of the complications is that there IS no virtual core. vCPU is NOT core.

a vCPU has vCores. Always. It might just be one. That is how it works.

Not in any system I've seen. What people call vCores are actually vCPUs. The vCPU might tell the OS it has multiple cores, but the idea of a vCore has never existed, only vCPUs. Vmware, KVM, etc. all the same. Core means physical, it's like having a physical virtual, it cancels itself out.

I am almost certain that VMWare lets you make a 1 CPU VM with 2 cores.

Hyper-V just says virtual processors.

KVM says CPUs.

But I very clearly remember some hypervisor letting me specify a vCPU and vCores.