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

[AresKrieger]

 

 

Windows Server 2016, not likely to arrive until the second half of next year, is going to shake up the way Microsoft licenses its server operating system, moving away from per socket licensing to per core. The change was first spotted by Wes Miller who is, for his sins, an expert on Microsoft licensing policies.

 

 

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.

This change brings Windows Server's licensing in line with SQL Server's; SQL Server 2014 switched to a per core model. So too did BizTalk 2013. Azure is also licensed on the basis of virtual machine cores, rather than sockets. The switch is obviously a reaction to increasing processor core counts and, with it, reduced importance of high socket count systems.

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

 

If I were a server owner I wouldn't like this, assuming I had servers with 10 or more cores (per socket), as lost money for stupid reasons is annoying.

 

Also why is microsoft switching to a more complicated system, well money of course like that's a surprise.

[flibberdipper]

What the actual fuck? I don't care that I get the keys for free through MSDN, I'm not going past Server 2012 R2 now for sure.

 

Not that I'll get enough power to do this in the first place.

[Str_Mape]

That could be painful for @LinusTech with the 12 core Xeons

[Guest]

The reason for this is that a big push for Intel's increased core count was that VMWare and Microsoft both license per socket - they put more cores on less sockets = lower license costs.

[trag1c]

I refuse to pay for 28 cores when I build my compute server.

[Dabombinable]

The reason for this is that a big push for Intel's increased core count was that VMWare and Microsoft both license per socket - they put more cores on less sockets = lower license costs.

Its still a really shitty move though.

[AresKrieger]

Its still a really shitty move though.

Yeah you won't be the only one with that reaction, It makes sense for microsoft from a numbers stance but it will definitely won't be popular with many of their customers 

[Belgarathian]

The reason for this is that a big push for Intel's increased core count was that VMWare and Microsoft both license per socket - they put more cores on less sockets = lower license costs.

 

I was also thinking of VMs where each instance is assigned a core so you'll have multiple licenses per server.... I haven't really read anything I'll admit, but this is what jumped to mind as reasoning. 

[Agent181]

ouch, servers will pay more

[Cheddle]

yep... was a sad day today...

[Trik'Stari]

I swear to god, Microsoft is trying to kill whatever remains of its share in the enterprise arena.

 

You can already do almost everything Windows Server can do, with Linux, which is free.....so them doing this makes zero fucking sense, as other corporations are just as greedy as they are, and will see this and go "screw it, hire some nerds and switch the servers to Linux".

 

At least for the corporations that aren't already running Linux on their servers(which is the majority of the internet to begin with).

[Swndlr]

That could be painful for @LinusTech with the 12 core Xeons

18 core actually

[rockking1379]

and just like that i will begin pursuing a complete and permanent migration to linux for any server related task

[Scheer]

It makes sense to me honestly, high core count CPUs came out so it was much cheaper for server owners to use it as a "loophole" and now Microsoft is re-balancing it.

[Blade of Grass]

The reason for this is that a big push for Intel's increased core count was that VMWare and Microsoft both license per socket - they put more cores on less sockets = lower license costs.

Do they count it per physical core or logical core?

[Guest]

Do they count it per physical core or logical core?

What do you mean?

[BiggHertz]

What do you mean?

Logical being after core scheduling aka Hyper Threading vs per Physical CPU core on the die.

 

-Jason

[SurvivorNVL]

Out of principal I feel like switching to Linux and only Linux beyond just server means.  This is ridiculous.

[BiggHertz]

 I only have some 35k+ physical cores to license. Microsoft VL with Enterprise Agreements certainly well help. O_o

[RexinOridle]

WTF is this fucking bullshit?

[Blake]

 

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

 

If I were a server owner I wouldn't like this, assuming I had servers with 10 or more cores (per socket), as lost money for stupid reasons is annoying.

 

Also why is microsoft switching to a more complicated system, well money of course like that's a surprise.

 

1. MS licensing is already complicated, this wont do a thing to make it more or less complicated, it will just mean no-one knows what to do for a while there.

2. I wouldn't (and don't) care about the licensing costs, I go to business/software vendors and ask what are requirements? I then go to person/department requesting X,Y, or Z and say it will cost $x,xxx.xx are you going to sign this? They then say let me think about it. I then get their response in writing, the smart ones remember that i got it in writing. the smart ones don't try to blame IT.

[Misanthrope]

The reason for this is that a big push for Intel's increased core count was that VMWare and Microsoft both license per socket - they put more cores on less sockets = lower license costs.

 

Yes however, you gotta admire their logic: In the face of more intense competition from Redhat and Linux you decide to fuck potential business partners even harder? If anything this will push people to invest even more into Linux and other visualization environments.

[Bouzoo]

What do you mean?

 

I think he meant thread vs core. Quite interested in that as well. 

 

I suppose not, but could this mean there is a chance of Linus going for Linux? 

[TheGamingBarrel]

I think he meant thread vs core. Quite interested in that as well. 

 

I suppose not, but could this mean there is a chance of Linus going for Linux? 

LinuxTechTips Keepo

[Nowak]

I You can already do almost everything Windows Server can do, with Linux, which is free.....

Red Hat Enterprise Linux, one of the most popular server distros, is a subscription-based product. Pretty sure SuSE is subscription-based too. Most servers running Linux run CentOS, though, which is free. So no, Linux (at least on servers) isn't 100% free.

 

But yeah, outside of Active Directory or if you want to make an Active Server Page site there isn't much point to Windows Server.