Looking for:
Windows server 2016 datacenter lizenzierung vmware free |
Windows server 2016 datacenter lizenzierung vmware free.Windows Server licensing on VMware - MS Licensing
Free Licensing for Windows Server Datacenter | Mirazon.Windows Server 2019 Datacenter licensing for VMware?
You still have to count how much 'power' you have. OEM is less of course. Call it what you like - it's now more than twice the price for a small outfit. You are saying it is the same - but clearly it is not. Please read what I have said carefully - then explain why my logic is flawed at deriving my conclusion.
Seems like Microsoft is trying to price themselves so you come to the conclusion that you shouldn't be running any hypervisor but theirs. Bloody insane to license by core so that every two VM's forces you to relicense the physical server. The whole point of buying hyped up hosts is so you can allocate less than what the host has to each virtual. The hypervisor has nothing to do with pricing. Doesn't matter which one you use, the pricing is exactly the same. I'd have to say that I think that Rod.
Fuller has a point. It used to be that you simply bought a single server license for each VM you wanted to use Window server on, regardless of the hypervisor. But that still quite a big price to pay just for the privilege of running a virtual environment.
The hypervisor still has nothing to do with it, though. All pricing and licensing remains the same, no matter what hypervisor you use. One question I have about this is if you commit to not running Windows servers on one of your vSphere hosts, do you still have to purchase core licenses for that particular host?
In my case I have 3 vSphere hosts and I want to add a 4th. I have no plans to run Windows servers on the 4th and do not wish to purchase Windows licenses for that host. Okay, I do have to concede that point. I guess the better conclusion to make is that Microsoft is just trying to assure themselves extra revenue in the new world of virtualization.
This still hasn't changed much, if you price everything the same. If you had a lot of CPUs you had to buy more licenses, now it's cores instead. If you want to license on more than one box then you needed to license them all and you still do.
The shift has been from CPU to core and if you have a lot of cores, yes, it can cost more. But the process is still basically the same as it always was. In the world of more cores, yes. Virtualization is still pretty much handled the same way as always. But that's not what you are paying for. You are paying for the ability to fail over between all those nodes. If all you wanted was the virtualization, you'd pay a fraction as much. So that is completely misleading.
That's apples to apples. If you wanted to do today ten years ago, it would have cost a fortune. Actually quite the opposite. They've gone out of their way to lower the cost for Windows if you virtualize. Doing the same things with physical cause the cost of Windows to skyrocket. So rather than "extra revenue", they've given up revenue to make sure that people don't pay high amounts for Windows.
I'm not saying that Windows is cheap, but you are making it sound like Microsoft is somehow raising the price to go after people who are virtualizing when they've lowered it by a massive margin compared to physical. But important to remember, the licensing is by core with physical installs, too. It's not related to virtualization. I think the disappointment is that, as I recall, you used to only need to purchase a server license per VM server, which seemed simple and straight forward.
Now you have to purchase the license per VM server per physical host. This being the case, it seems to me that the key difference between the physical and the virtual environment is that I have to pay for a physical host even if the windows server VM is not running on it, in a multi-host environment.
For that reason, assuming you want to have redundant physical hosts , it seems like virtualization plays a key part in driving up the cost of hosting a single Windows server instance. As for the cost, I keep forgetting that each license is sold with 2 cores. Thanks for your comments.
I'm still struggling to get my mind around the new licensing model and this conversation is helping me get my mind around the new approach. That's not true.
You've always had to license the physical box that's running the VMs. The more VMs you want to run the more license you buy. That's not changed. If you want to run HA, you need to license all machines. That's true if it's physical or virtual. How else can it be instantly available? The new licensing model has been in place for over a decade.
And it is purely beneficial to people virtualizing, there are no downsides to it. You can always go to the physical licensing model, but all that does is punish you. You've never gotten unlimited VM per license until recently, now that is available with DC licensing. That's still available, but didn't used to be.
The only thing that Microsoft has done from its very first licenses is move you from one VM per license to two in the standard license - purely beneficial to clients. It's never moved backwards from better to worse in the entire history of being able to virtualize Windows. There is no situation where virtualization costs more than physical vis-a-vis the Windows licensing. You always pay at most the same and generally far less.
Anything you want to do with virtual, try to price out the same thing with physical, and the licensing will normally be nearly double. Now, all of that said, we know that Windows has come down in price, rather than going up, where virtualization is concerned, over the last two decades. But it is still very expensive, regardless. You can even not use high availability with Windows, that's purely an option as makes sense for your environment.
Don't forget, because lots of people do, that running Windows at all is purely optional. I work now in an environment that has eliminated it completely and things are great without it. No need for it at all, no need to pay for the licensing, but also no need to manage licensing, no fear of audits, and so forth.
It's amazing how free and flexible you can be once you can deploy anything, anywhere, anytime without having to worry about costs, licensing, following specific licensing rules, and so forth.
When we last purchased Windows r2 licenses, I agree that it was a long time ago , we only purchased 1 Windows Standard license per VM instance. It appears to me that I can license 12 physical Windows servers for 10k, but to run the same 12 Windows VMs in the virtual environment, my costs can go up pretty dramatically, depending on the number of virtual hosts.
What am I missing in the cost difference that virtualization makes? I understand that this is just the way things are but it is hard to explain to our CEO. Part of the problem for me is that, as you have mentioned , it has been so long since we purchase new licenses and we have to get used to the new licensing model.
That is true for the first license you purchase, because you have to purchase a minimum of a 16 core license, whether or not you use VMs or you go with a physical installation, that is for 8 physical cores or less. Included in that purchase is the right to use two VMs. If you aren't running a virtual environment, then your 16 license will only be covering one instance of Windows server.
After that each license you purchase gives you rights for 2 cores. Here is a helpful link from HP to help calculate the number of core licenses you have to purchase for a virtual environment.
In my case, I have 3 hosts with dual processors, each with 8 cores. To license 12 Windows Server VMs to run in that environment I initially have to license 48 cores and license an additional cores.
If I add another host, I have to purchase enough licenses to cover 64 initial cores and additional cores. Since each license covers two cores, when you break it down to a price per license , the number is divided in half.
Of course this is just for the Windows standard license. A windows server standard license means that you fully license the physical server. This means purchasing the correct number of cores. A standard license grants you 2 VMs. To get 1 or 2 more VMs you must purchase another Windows Server Standard licence all those cores again. A standard or data centre license always means the physical server. The cost of that license is the number of cores in the cpus with 16 cores as a minimum purchase.
And at this point - Linux enters the discussion I use the second server for replication DR. Typically the needs are:. It is time I rolled up my sleeves and figured out how to do this Linux thing.
Licensing of MS Office hasn't really changed much. It's the damn activation that MS has really made a mess of. You are correct. I was only trying to state it in terms of how you have to purchase the licenses. CDW quoted a price per license, because I am running a virtual environment, and according to them each license to covers two cores. If I was running all physical, I'd have to purchase 16 core licenses for each physical machine. I only wish we weren't so heavily invested in Microsoft. Have your clients had any issues exchanging documents with their customers who may have standardized on Microsoft products?
This topic has been locked by an administrator and is no longer open for commenting. To continue this discussion, please ask a new question. Your daily dose of tech news, in brief. He conceived the ma I manage several M tenants all with Security Defaults enabled and in one specific tenant, for some reason, no users including Global Admins are able to create a Team directly in the Teams app using the "Join or create a team" option.
This option IS Do you take breaks or do you keep going until you complete the 6 steps of debugging? Then, you can install it on your PC and try it for days. Windows Server is still in the support period of Microsoft, so you can get the Windows Server ISO download from the Microsoft official website. Here is the guide:. When you install Windows Server , you need to choose an edition. In addition, you also need to choose an installation option. Follow this full tutorial to get the system now!
Author Linda has been working as an editor at MiniTool for 1 year. As a fresh man in IT field, she is curious about computer knowledge and learns it crazily. Maybe due to this point, her articles are simple and easy to understand. Even people who do not understand computer can gain something. By the way, her special focuses are data recovery, partition management, disk clone, and OS migration.
No comments:
Post a Comment