Windows Server 2016 Licensing Info
-
The only winners here are the Linux shops.
-
Licensing cores is roughly the same as licensing GHz. You can do it, but it is going to hamper processor development and change what people buy and how things are done.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.
I don't understand why?
"Licenses for servers with 8 cores or less per proc will be same price as the 2012 R2 two-proc
license price." -
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
But you will pay for licensing 16, regardless.
I don't understand why?
"Licenses for servers with 8 cores or less per proc will be same price as the 2012 R2 two-proc
license price."Because 16 is the smallest you can buy. You just quoted the 16 core minimum.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Because 16 is the smallest you can buy. You just quoted the 16 core minimum.
But the price for "paying for 16" is going to the the same pricne I am paying today, right?
-
@BRRABill From What i read it will be, but that is not official from microsoft yet.
-
The above link seems to be a MS document, and they say a few times in there the pricing will be the same.
Not saying it isn't going to affect larger shops, but just saying for a smaller business with 1 server, it might not be a big change.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Because 16 is the smallest you can buy. You just quoted the 16 core minimum.
But the price for "paying for 16" is going to the the same pricne I am paying today, right?
Right, so the minimum that you can buy is 16. So your price is the same as the 16 price, because 16 is the smallest option.
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
@BRRABill From What i read it will be, but that is not official from microsoft yet.
That's official MS documentation.
-
@scottalanmiller I missed the part on pricing in it, i read a price elsewhere on the internet
-
@BRRABill said:
Not saying it isn't going to affect larger shops, but just saying for a smaller business with 1 server, it might not be a big change.
It's the small shops getting hit. Those that bought even tiny AMD CPUs have to pay extra. Those that got single procs with more cores rather than two with fewer are hit. Those that consolidated into a single chassis get hit. It goes on and on. People made core decisions based on factors that have changed.
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
@scottalanmiller I missed the part on pricing in it, i read a price elsewhere on the internet
We don't know what the PRICE is, but we know that 16 cores is the smallest that they will sell.
-
@scottalanmiller Yea, I have 2 single proc. 10 core servers, that I will have to figure out pricing on.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's the small shops getting hit. Those that bought even tiny AMD CPUs have to pay extra. Those that got single procs with more cores rather than two with fewer are hit. Those that consolidated into a single chassis get hit. It goes on and on. People made core decisions based on factors that have changed.
Yeah that is ridiculous.
I think they should grandfather in existing hardware.
(No need to say anything about Microsoft licensing to me. I already know what you will say.
) -
@brianlittlejohn said:
@scottalanmiller Yea, I have 2 single proc. 10 core servers, that I will have to figure out pricing on.
Yup, you'll probably get hit pretty hard. We have dual 12 core!!
-
Ah, something that we missed.... it's a minimum of 8 cores per proc and 16 cores per server. So the smallest you can buy is always 16 cores... that much we know.
What this means is...
A single 16 core processor is fine. Two 8 core processors are fine. But four processors with four cores each is not okay.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
@mlnews Thats not too bad...
It's pretty bad. Even NTG Lab's old lab gear has more than eight cores per proc. This will likely make the cost of deploying Windows skyrocket unless people are custom buying special, small servers just for running Windows.
There are some guys (incl. StarWind) who had built their products around an idea "let's have less sockets but more cores as sockets are licensed and cores are free". Now it turns the idea is WRONG and... we'll just get CPUs with a higher clock rates / more memory instead of paying license tax to Microsoft. We'll be good, customers will get their performance and IOPS in some other way they expected and it will be MSFT who's going to lose $$$.
-
Can anybody explain me where did $6,000+ came from?!!?
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/windows-server-2016/
(Yes, I've read MSFT FAQ)
Windows Server 2016 Editions
Datacenter Edition
Standard Edition
Core functionality of Windows ServerOSEs/Hyper-V containers*
Unlimited
2
Windows Server containers
Unlimited
Unlimited
Nano ServerNew storage features including Storage Spaces Direct and Storage Replica**
New Shielded Virtual Machines and Host Guardian Service**
New networking stack**
Licensing Model***
Core + CAL
Core + CAL
Price+
$6,155
$882 -
Yeah, the industry has put a lot of effort into all kinds of both software and hardware research based around a pricing model that has now changed.
The real lesson here is, as it has been many times in the past, that Windows is the wrong place to be making investments when you can help it.
-
My boss and I just had a good giggle at the pricing - hoooooooooooooly shit
