Splitting your environment seems ideal until something breaks, as the damage can show itself quickly. When you buy special license kits Acceleration Kit , you can upgrade vSphere Essentials to full-featured vSphere editions. And the hypervisor remains no part of the equation, that's never changed. That's true if it's physical or virtual. If you would care to double-check you can go to and edit my numbers to match your particular situation. William6630 wrote: Okay, I do have to concede that point. The higher cost is unfortunate, but the upside is you can deploy new Windows Server 2016 virtual machines at will as long as you have resources to accommodate just like Windows Server 2012 R2 Datacenter.
If you need 12 or less, then it is cheaper to buy Standard licenses. The good news is with vSphere 4. In some cases, the tangle of conflicting opinions and details has enterprises avoiding virtualizing Oracle applications and databases altogether. Don't confuse yourself by thinking that a core or 2 cores is a license. Unfortunately, the answer is not simple.
The cost of that license is the number of cores in the cpus with 16 cores as a minimum purchase. I guess the better conclusion to make is that Microsoft is just trying to assure themselves extra revenue in the new world of virtualization. . In my case I have 3 vSphere hosts and I want to add a 4th. Your Microsoft reseller has records, their distributor s have records, and Microsoft has records. This can be especially practical if you already have split farms due to multiple generations of host hardware. Some of you may be confused at this point and for good reason.
You can stack licenses as well. So, compared to Windows Server 2012, the cost of the licenses on low-duty servers will not change, but for high-performance systems with several 10-core processors licensing cost will increase by 25%. Microsoft licensing audits are just commonplace now and you may have noticed are happening more frequently. I hope 2018 brings something new though. This can add stress to , but given Microsoft's new price tag, it might be worth the effort.
In the world of more cores, yes. I'd have to say that I think that Rod. Wait, was it always like this just without the cores? I imagine their hope is to drive people to Hyper-V adoption by increasing Windows Server licensing costs. Microsoft does not allow you to reassign licenses among hosts more than every 90 days as part of regular operations. You can even not use high availability with Windows, that's purely an option as makes sense for your environment.
As an aside, it is said that this change has been undertaken to use the same licensing model of Azure IaaS, but even in that offerings the licensing part of the price is obscure: vms are bought also considering the number of vcpus, but how licenses are paid on them? This means purchasing the correct number of cores. Doesn't matter which one you use, the pricing is exactly the same. 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. Since you are using Dreamspark, none of this really applies to you. You first need to understand that Windows Server 2016 core licenses are sold in packs of two.
Thanks for reading and commenting! If you aren't running a virtual environment, then your 16 license will only be covering one instance of Windows server. Server License packs license two cores. This should be common knowledge, just like that you need to insert a power cable in a computer to start it up. Affinity and anti-affinity rules in a vSphere environment can conflict with one another. See for information about creating and using this type of rule.
William6630 wrote: DragonsRule wrote: rod. Windows Server 2012 R2 Licensing Model Windows Server 2012 R2 Standard and Datacenter Editions were licensed on a per Processor basis. Software Assurance on Windows Server 2016 is way more expensive and highly variable dependent on core count. That was true when 2016 came out but now Microsoft wants the base license to be 16-cores with 2-core packs added to that if the hardware requires it. I have a feeling that eventually Microsoft may get the hint and will start making the licensing easier to digest. I hope this was informative and please leave comments, questions or even tell me if you think I screwed something up. A lot of organisations are licensing their virtual machines with Windows Server Standard, one at a time.
But that's not what you are paying for. If there are more than eight cores, organizations must buy additional core pack license kits, each of which offers an additional two cores. And if you have more than two processors, then you will need to buy enough licenses to cover each processor with 8 cores each. It seems like to me these rules only apply to Hyper-V environments, but other forums seems to this is the case regardless of the hypervisor. All pricing and licensing remains the same, no matter what hypervisor you use. William6630 wrote: Okay, I do have to concede that point. This meant you could have 1 x physical Windows Server 2012 R2 instance or 2 x virtual Windows Server 2012 R2 instances on one physical host with 2 Processors.