Windows Server 2016 moving to per core, not per socket, licensing

[silicon_toad2000]

Windows Server 2012 introduced a great rationalization in the way Microsoft licensed its server operating system. The two main editions, Standard and Datacenter, had identical features, and differed only in terms of the number of virtual operating system instances they supported. Standard supported two VMs (in addition to the host OS); Datacenter was unlimited. Beyond that, they were identical. The licenses for both editions were sold in two socket units; one license was needed for each pair of sockets a system contained.

Windows Server 2016 makes that simple system less simple. First, it reinstates the functional differences between Standard and Datacenter editions. Datacenter will include additional storage replication capabilities, a new network stack with richer virtualization options, and shielded virtual machines that protect the content of a virtual machine from the administrator of the host operating system. These features won't be found in the Standard edition.

Second, the licensing moves to a per core model. Instead of 2012's two socket license pack, 2016 will use a 2 core pack, with the license cost of each 2016 pack being 1/8th the price of the corresponding 2 socket pack for 2012. Each system running Windows Server 2016 must have a minimum of 8 cores (4 packs) per processor, and a minimum of 16 cores (8 packs) per system.

For systems with up to 4 processors and up to 8 cores per processor, this won't change the overall licensing cost. Above this, however, things get more expensive; although the price for a single processor 10 core system will remain the same, with two or or more sockets populated by 10 core processors, prices will go up; 2 or 4 processors with 10 cores per processor will cost 25 percent more to run Windows Server 2016 than they did 2012.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/windows-server-2016-moving-to-per-core-not-per-socket-licensing/

[White Stripes]

...and microsoft continues to make bad business decisions

[Pri]

I read that yesterday and this part concerns me:

Each system running Windows Server 2016 must have a minimum of 8 cores (4 packs) per processor, and a minimum of 16 cores (8 packs) per system.

Does that mean the new OS will require an 8 core CPU minimum or will an 8 core license function on a 2, 4 or 6 core system? My own server is only 6 cores, I do use Windows Server 2012 R2 on it. I've read the pdf file and some other news outlets coverage and no one is clarifying not even Microsoft on what the minimum specifications are.

And I agree with White Stripes, more bad decisions from Microsoft. They are competing with FREE on every end now. Free iOS updates for iPhones free OS X updates for Macs free Android updates for Android Phones free Chrome and Linux updates for PC's, free server operating systems including BSD, Linux and finally free bare metal hypervisors including KVM, ESXi, Proxmox etc

These incredibly high licensing terms are just going to further erode their market share.

[White Stripes]

Does that mean the new OS will require an 8 core CPU minimum or will an 8 core license function on a 2, 4 or 6 core system? My own server is only 6 cores

if it actually -needs- 8 cores its too bloated to be a server OS ... something tells me, if they didnt gut whats left of winnt, that'll run on that 6 core... just that microsoft will happily take your money for the 2 cores you dont have...


...ever thought of switching to linux or BSD? BSD would be more mac-like (for software you write that needs compiling)... wouldnt need a new license if you upgraded your hardware either...

..or are you stuck in GSs position of owning too much commercial software  that a switch (just the server mind) wouldnt be feasible?

[Pri]

I actually don't want to switch. I'm quite happy using Windows Server 2012 R2. To me the linux server stuff just isn't high quality enough, very steep learning curves for everything where as with Windows 99.9% of all the software is easy to install, easy to configure and has an easy to learn (in <5 minutes) intuitive graphical interface.

I think most software I run on it at the moment could be run on Linux under Wine or I could switch to different software that does the same thing but I don't want to do that for the above reasons.

That isn't to say I think Windows is amazing or anything I just think its one hole approach has nourished a wide ecosystem that only Android has been able to wrangle when it comes to Linux by essentially doing the same thing, one core operating system, one distribution of Linux from which powerful and standardised API's and frameworks can drive innovative and intuitive software.

I know there are some purists still among us that think everything should have a command line interface or everything should be able to be configured headless and I don't disagree with that at all when it comes to server software, but I also believe those things should be paired with a powerful and well designed graphical user interface either in native code or through a web interface which is bundled from the start and accessible immediately.

It's one of the reasons I really love PFSense which uses FreeBSD as its core. Everything in it that you'd want to do is in the WebUI. At the moment in our house we use Windows Server 2012 R2, Synology DSM (NAS software based on a Linux distro) and PFsense which is FreeBSD based.

In the distant future I do intend to make a ZFS server probably using FreeNAS or something similar but that will be hooked up to a Windows server for actual application hosting and things of that nature. Probably with Windows virtualized by ESXi.

[White Stripes]

android and now windows get to know its user just a little too well for my tastes... tired of closed source as well... just look at the airport stuck with win 3.1 .... windows drops into place nicely i'll give you that, but the one that gets dropped in place usually ends up running dangerously past its end of support date and the software cant be easily moved... (anyone still on winXP?)

as for standardized linux... ubuntu and rhel are the two main ones... android i dont really count due to its reliance on java (a lot of things run java on the linux kernel... the e-ink kindles come to mind)...

[Pri]

For me personally I just want something turnkey and easy. For airports, government and schools they should be using an open source software stack top to bottom and they should be investing in the software they use by paying developers to customise what they need and give back to the projects.

Everything I said only applies to me not wanting to spend my life as a system operator.

[White Stripes]

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/windows-server-2016/ --- 6000$ for server 2016 datacenter version.... 800$ for standard version....

play the way you want but ... those price tags.. ouch..


still cant seem to find if it actually does -need- 8 cores ... but it is the least amount one can buy a license for...

[Pri]

I've never paid for it, nor will I. Microsoft has many ways to get things for free legitimately. I have MSDN access etc

[Pri]

So it turns out Microsoft will not have CPU limits. But the minimum license will be 8 Cores. So if you have a 1, 2, 4 or 6 core system you still need to buy four licenses (which is for an 8 Core CPU system).

I won't be paying for it but I'm glad it will work without any modifications on my 6 Core server.

[White Stripes]

microsoft is so weird...