Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 57
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by KiwiDave View Post
    The 1 vs 2 processor thing might be because you're still licencing 2008 via SPLA rather than 2012. 2008 was licenced per single processor, whereas 2012 is licenced per processor pair. I've lost the link to a really useful MS document explaining the change, but basically they're assuming that most servers these days are dual processor, so they changed the licence for standard so that it covers 2 procs and 2 VMs, then almost doubled the price. So, if you were licencing 2 VMs or 2 procs before, your costs would decrease. If you had a single proc server, your cost would go up, but with them pushing virtualisation and cloud etc, single proc servers are becoming less common.

    The other calculations you've got:

    "You have a 2-processor server with 4 VMs. You will need eight licenses for 4 VMs on a 2-processor server.
    . You have a 2-processor server with 6 VMs. You will need twelve licenses for 6 VMs on a 2-processor server."

    Seem like they're specifically for 2008 standard edition based on the earlier text. This matches with my recollection of 2008 licencing. Since each licence was per VM and each VM could see 2 virtual procs, you ended up needing a heap of licences. This is where datacenter edition comes in. Under 2008 datacenter, for both the cases above, 2 datacenter licences would cover the whole server, since each is for a single proc and covers unlimited VMs. (Again with the understanding you might not actually install datacenter directly on the host if you're using VMWare, Xen etc so it's just a paper assignment.) Depending on the pricing of std vs datacenter from your provider, there's a point where buying additional std licences becomes more expensive than just switching to datacenter to cover an unlimited number of VMs.
    No, if you read my initial post I opened this because all Windows 2008 products are gone from my account, and I need to license them as 2012 from now on.

    My Insight account only lists 2012 products since my agreement was renewed, and Windows Standard is 1 PROC, not two.

    While the link you posted says indeed 2 PROC in the FAQ, my own documentation says One, and so does my licensing account.

    If the same license was for a minimum of two, then yes I agree, this would at least make a bit more sense, but this is not what I see in my account. Maybe someone can check on theirs, and see if Windows Standard is indeed for 2 processors minimum.

    Also the FAQ I posted from my Word Document is only for 2012 products and it says otherwise as that PDF. I received this with other powerpoint and stuff, and the Word document is only to explain SPLA questions on the new products. Of course Datacenter makes sense if you run allot of Windows VM where you break the price point and this is exactly not true in the hosting world. Most run Linux, and having Windows was just a nice option. And you cannot mix licenses, in the same server, its either Standard or Datacenter. So for those that only need a few Windows VM per server, they would need to put all eggs in the same basket (physical server dedicated only to Windows) or pay more to run a mixed environment.

    Either way, Windows Virtual Machine will suck. That is my point. Since providers will try to run consolidated Windows machine in the same hardware, and keep with as low sockets as possible in order to get a better price advantage.
    Last edited by nibb; 05-23-2013 at 08:32 PM.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    76
    I'd check with Insight then - it may be that their panel needs to be updated for 2012.

    Did you see my comment above about 2012 Essentials edition? If you're only needing to licence a couple of windows VMs, that might be the cheapest way to do it, though I'm not sure if it's allowed. It would require that your customers actually upgrade to 2012 so it's not optimal.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    76
    Just seen your last point about performance. My experience tells me that windows VMs are limited by disk i/o well before CPU performance. So if you build a server with good disk performance and fewer CPUs you can cram quite a few on there before it becomes an issue (aside from the 'eggs in one basket' problem). Obviously that increases the costs again, but anyone running windows on a VM will be expecting to pay more than linux for the same hardware specs.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Lets forget about the 2008 for now. I want to focus only in new servers. The problem with licenses is still here.

    Essentials? Its more expensive than Standard on my account.

    Also not sure what this means but it says for Essential:

    Each license will be assigned to a single physical server and covers one physical processor. All of the processors in the server must be licensed with no virtualization rights.

    Where did you get the info that Essentials can be licensed per VM?

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    76
    The PDF I linked to above (http://download.microsoft.com/downlo..._Datasheet.pdf) says:

    Essentials can be run in either a physical or virtual operating system environment “1 or 1.”

    It also says that the licence includes 2CPUs (foundation only 1). Based on the retail pricing in the same chart (std=$882,ess=$501) I was expecting that essentials would be cheaper via SPLA as well.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,623
    Quote Originally Posted by nibb View Post
    Thank you for proving my point, exactly what I said before.

    Companies will run Datacenter in one socket servers.

    While everyone else, Linux will run in multiple sockets

    I am not sure I follow, to be honest. You license it for 2 CPU, and you use any amount WINDOWS VM under it. The cost comes out to if you put 12 on a node(which is a low amount), it is cheaper than 2008 edition in any form, and you can put the customer on standard edition instead of a limited web edition.

    In fact the datacenter pricing didn't change between 2008 and 2012, and we and most others were using datacenter edition on nodes anyway. It only doesn't work for you because you are randomly placing windows machines everywhere, consolidate where they are installed and its a non factor, because datacenter includes full virtualization rights.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by (Stephen) View Post
    I am not sure I follow, to be honest. You license it for 2 CPU, and you use any amount WINDOWS VM under it. The cost comes out to if you put 12 on a node(which is a low amount), it is cheaper than 2008 edition in any form, and you can put the customer on standard edition instead of a limited web edition.

    In fact the datacenter pricing didn't change between 2008 and 2012, and we and most others were using datacenter edition on nodes anyway. It only doesn't work for you because you are randomly placing windows machines everywhere, consolidate where they are installed and its a non factor, because datacenter includes full virtualization rights.
    This again proves another point I have. Most hosting companies get the SPLA wrong.

    I send the link posted here to Microsoft and they said its not valid for SPLA.

    This means its NOT 2 processor license, like it was said before.

    Standard is for 1 processor, so for one VM for a 2 socket server you need 2.

    For a 6 socket server and one VM you need 6.

    It seems what I posted before is correct.

    This is what I was replied by the SPLA team:
    Go by the attached word document we sent you. The link (the PDF on this thread) you sent is for licensing for other licensing programs, not SPLA. Always go by documents prepared for the SPLA program or the Service Provider Use Rights (SPUR).

    So Windows Standard is per processors not 2 minimum processors (which would actually make more sense...)

    It seems Datacenter is the only effective way to do it, and you should keep it to one socket processors to keep costs low.

    So what we learned.

    The new SPLA program is completely cost effective if you have a mixed environments and only need a few Windows VM per node.

    Its only effective if you keep it on servers with as less sockets as possible, using Datacenter edition and put all windows VM on it.

    Result?

    Windows VM will usually always be in worst hardware than Linux VM, (less sockets) with a higher density of machines (more machines to get cost per VM cheaper on the license) which will result in awful performance for Microsoft VMs.

    The new SPLA is completely unusable for environments mixed where mostly Linux is run. Moving VMS to other hardware or cloud setups will conflicts with the licenses.

    To resume.

    Using Windows in Virtual Environments does not make sense. Its more expensive than running on the physical machines and makes no sense whatsoever for small setups.

    I always knew Linux dominated in datacenters but now I can clearly see why. The previous SPLA was better fit for virtual environments, the new one, it seems the whole licensing team on Microsoft is working against hosting companies and in favor of just using Linux. I understand they want companies to user hyper-v and do not host Linux machines, this is pretty clear with the licensing, but this is not going to happen, so we are going to see a huge increase in Windows Virtual Machine, possible most providers not offering it all, because for entry VPS or starter VMs, it will be too expensive.
    Last edited by nibb; 05-24-2013 at 04:42 PM.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    551

    Microsoft Forcing Upgrade to Server 2012?

    This brings up another issue that I have raised before with MS reps. What other company makes it so difficult to give them money for their product?

    Everyone in this thread is competent and yet we can't agree on how to interpret MS's licensing. We have to compare 3 different sources which lead to conflicting information.

    Could you imagine walking into Best Buy, pointing at a TV you want to buy, and no one in the store can give you an accurate price?

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,623
    Quote Originally Posted by nibb View Post
    This again proves another point I have. Most hosting companies get the SPLA wrong.

    I send the link posted here to Microsoft and they said its not valid for SPLA.

    This means its NOT 2 processor license, like it was said before.

    Standard is for 1 processor, so for one VM for a 2 socket server you need 2.

    For a 6 socket server and one VM you need 6.

    It seems what I posted before is correct.

    This is what I was replied by the SPLA team:
    Go by the attached word document we sent you. The link (the PDF on this thread) you sent is for licensing for other licensing programs, not SPLA. Always go by documents prepared for the SPLA program or the Service Provider Use Rights (SPUR).

    So Windows Standard is per processors not 2 minimum processors (which would actually make more sense...)

    It seems Datacenter is the only effective way to do it, and you should keep it to one socket processors to keep costs low.

    So what we learned.

    The new SPLA program is completely cost effective if you have a mixed environments and only need a few Windows VM per node.

    Its only effective if you keep it on servers with as less sockets as possible, using Datacenter edition and put all windows VM on it.

    Result?

    Windows VM will usually always be in worst hardware than Linux VM, (less sockets) with a higher density of machines (more machines to get cost per VM cheaper on the license) which will result in awful performance for Microsoft VMs.

    The new SPLA is completely unusable for environments mixed where mostly Linux is run. Moving VMS to other hardware or cloud setups will conflicts with the licenses.

    To resume.

    Using Windows in Virtual Environments does not make sense. Its more expensive than running on the physical machines and makes no sense whatsoever for small setups.

    I always knew Linux dominated in datacenters but now I can clearly see why. The previous SPLA was better fit for virtual environments, the new one, it seems the whole licensing team on Microsoft is working against hosting companies and in favor of just using Linux. I understand they want companies to user hyper-v and do not host Linux machines, this is pretty clear with the licensing, but this is not going to happen, so we are going to see a huge increase in Windows Virtual Machine, possible most providers not offering it all, because for entry VPS or starter VMs, it will be too expensive.
    I don't get what you keep talking about less sockets for, you know most linux stuff is licensed per socket as well right?

    There is NO REASON to use less sockets on windows than on linux, the servers are still very cost effective at 2way or 4 way with datacenter edition. I don't license the lower ones much unless it is hardware nodes not running virtualized, because it doesn't make sense to run virtualized on anything but datacenter cost wise.

    when you are running datacenter edition, you do NOT have to license the VMs on that machine with their own, so the licenses of the others becomes a useless point of discussion. I agree if you are doing one off VMs here and there, the changes are bad for you, but if you consolidate Windows VMs to a machine no matter how many sockets, and do it under 1 DC license per socket, you come out a winner!

  10. #35
    nice post steven

    its difficult to have pure windows hypervisors and hypervisor pools, even if the volume justifies it. it gets complicated with automation platforms, # of plans you have and how you present them (which matters with where they get allocated on account and VM creation and matters with customers who have mixed linux and windows VMs within their account)

    I dont find the windows licensing at all limiting though - people who use windows understand the costs associated with it (for the most part) and expect to pay for it - no different then people using RHEL vs CentOS for example...

    I actually think Microsoft has made great strides in simplifying their licensing model on the whole - hard to argue with it..
    www.cartika.com
    www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,623
    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    I actually think Microsoft has made great strides in simplifying their licensing model on the whole - hard to argue with it..
    Many SKU basically down to 2, much easier now. However, the automation systems can work out, we use two different systems and so it work

    On windows we use Hyper-V on MS tech, on Linux we are running Parallels Cloud Server in VMs, those same VMs are fully capable of running windows yes, in fact we have some virtuozzo machines migrated over to the PCS nodes now running much better as true hardware VMs, but in that case we picked where the migration went for license purposes

    Now it all depends on the approach, I know if you are using one system and platform it may be a bit harder, but if you are license cost sensitive it is possibly the only way around it.
    I enjoy discussions like this, and hope MS takes the input and discussion up internally as well.

    Personally I wish MS would stop reselling out these SPLA plans, because communications come sometimes from MS and sometimes from reseller. I don't think the resellers are even making much here, and the overhead of working with the reseller is a pain! I'd much rather just have an online report and pay system with MS. The HP one is broken at least every other month it fails to send something, the cart just wont checkout, so many issues. MSDN/MS Volume license basically 'just work' without issue.

  12. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by (Stephen) View Post
    Many SKU basically down to 2, much easier now. However, the automation systems can work out, we use two different systems and so it work

    On windows we use Hyper-V on MS tech, on Linux we are running Parallels Cloud Server in VMs, those same VMs are fully capable of running windows yes, in fact we have some virtuozzo machines migrated over to the PCS nodes now running much better as true hardware VMs, but in that case we picked where the migration went for license purposes

    Now it all depends on the approach, I know if you are using one system and platform it may be a bit harder, but if you are license cost sensitive it is possibly the only way around it.
    I enjoy discussions like this, and hope MS takes the input and discussion up internally as well.

    Personally I wish MS would stop reselling out these SPLA plans, because communications come sometimes from MS and sometimes from reseller. I don't think the resellers are even making much here, and the overhead of working with the reseller is a pain! I'd much rather just have an online report and pay system with MS. The HP one is broken at least every other month it fails to send something, the cart just wont checkout, so many issues. MSDN/MS Volume license basically 'just work' without issue.
    Hi Stephen,

    you have hit directly on the crux of the only real issue I have with Microsofts approach... they are trying to force feed hyper-v down your throat for virtualization and hence make their licensing align with that agenda. I get it, as they make both products, etc, etc.. For us, we did choose 2 automation platforms, but, we made the decision based on infrastructure, not virtualization platform. We decided to standardize on KVM and then found automation platforms to meet our needs (ie onapp for local storage, flexiant for SAN storage) - the issue of course is that MS licensing doesnt align nicely unless you choose to use hyper-v for Windows VMs

    Anyway, not a huge deal for us anyway, and I still really like the simplicity of their new licensing model compared to their old

    I agree with you as well that dealing with SPLA partners is pointless - insight (who we deal with) always has site issues, etc, etc - and if they are making margins, I dont see why.. would rather deal directly, report to Microsoft and cut out the middle man...

    anyway, great conversation as always bud - cheers !
    www.cartika.com
    www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    Hi Stephen,

    I agree with you as well that dealing with SPLA partners is pointless - insight (who we deal with) always has site issues, etc, etc - and if they are making margins, I dont see why.. would rather deal directly, report to Microsoft and cut out the middle man...

    anyway, great conversation as always bud - cheers !
    Count me in as well. Reporting through Insight is a huge pain. We have problems many times and the real question is, how do you count the usage?
    Jason Canady • Unlimited Net, LLC
    812.669.0551 • sales [at] unlimitednet.us
    Midwest Hosting Solutions • AS11990
    Dedicated Server Hosting

  14. #39
    I don't see the point in even going with Microsoft's server OS when there are free and better operating systems at hand.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    937
    Quote Originally Posted by wkdlewy View Post
    I don't see the point in even going with Microsoft's server OS when there are free and better operating systems at hand.
    When you deal with clients and their needs, you don't always get a choice like that.
    Jason Canady • Unlimited Net, LLC
    812.669.0551 • sales [at] unlimitednet.us
    Midwest Hosting Solutions • AS11990
    Dedicated Server Hosting

  16. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by wkdlewy View Post
    I don't see the point in even going with Microsoft's server OS when there are free and better operating systems at hand.
    cant tell the massive community of .NET and MSSQL devs to start using Linux
    www.cartika.com
    www.clusterlogics.com - You simply cannot run a hosting company without this software. Backups, Disaster Recovery, Big Data, Virtualization. 20 years of building software that solves your problems

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703
    Hosting is a business where to be profitable we have to markup on each and everything service, product we offer. So if someone is giving out free windows because "they have to" because customers wants it but wont pay it is a lame excuse.
    So the solution is simple, increase the price to reflect what MS is charging plus your %age markup. I know couple of providers whose bread and butter is MS products where they make most of their money and colocation is just another product.
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Dallas/FortWorth TX
    Posts
    1,703
    Quote Originally Posted by cartika-andrew View Post
    cant tell the massive community of .NET and MSSQL devs to start using Linux
    +1 MS community is pretty big and pretty committed to MS period.
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by (Stephen) View Post
    I don't get what you keep talking about less sockets for, you know most linux stuff is licensed per socket as well right?

    There is NO REASON to use less sockets on windows than on linux, the servers are still very cost effective at 2way or 4 way with datacenter edition. I don't license the lower ones much unless it is hardware nodes not running virtualized, because it doesn't make sense to run virtualized on anything but datacenter cost wise.

    when you are running datacenter edition, you do NOT have to license the VMs on that machine with their own, so the licenses of the others becomes a useless point of discussion. I agree if you are doing one off VMs here and there, the changes are bad for you, but if you consolidate Windows VMs to a machine no matter how many sockets, and do it under 1 DC license per socket, you come out a winner!
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonsite View Post
    When you deal with clients and their needs, you don't always get a choice like that.
    You are just confirming exactly what I said. Consolidating Windows VMs on a specific hardware with the datacenter edition. Do you think this is smart for a hosting company? Being limited to specific hardware where to run Windows machines?

    In a virtual or cloud environments, you need to mix, match and move VMs around. Now you have to take into account, ups, I canīt move this server there, because that one is not licensed for DC edition, so it can only be transferred here and there.

    How is that working for you in terms of server loads? I assume you put all Windows VMs together then, those server should be really overselled or overloaded to break an effective price point.

    Which Linux OS or software do you license per socket? Red Hat? Oracle Databases, sure. But as far as I know most OS in Linux a free as beer. CentOS, Ubuntu, Debian, you name it.

    I can take a 4 socket servers and used it for Linux servers, balance load between servers, etc. Windows? Well, paying 4 sockets for the DC edition would expensive, so I would just license a 1 socket edition and put every single Windows customer there.

    This is my point. And since the ratio Linux vs Windows is huge. I assume most providers will end with a small % of hardware dedicated to Windows. This is extremely stupid in a virtual environment. Why do you even need to virtual things if specific hardware is only running Windows Machines?

    The idea of virtualization is being able to run any OS, Windows, Linux, you name it. So usually providers have a shared and mixed environment.

    This is bad for everyone. Hosting companies, Microsoft and end customers.

    1. Hosting companies need specific nodes dedicated to Windows VMs. They cannot mix them with other VMs or transfer them, or mix environments, etc, to keep them on specific servers licensed for DC edition.

    2. Less money for Microsoft. Some providers that have a small % of Windows servers or run cloud environments, could still run some Windows VM here, or there, before. Now its not cost effective unless its DC edition, so some may drop it completely and not offer it to simplify their setups and environments and to be honest, who needs complications...
    Some that do focus on Windows, will try to compete offering them for free or very free. Easy. Just one most servers as one socket and you will be cheaper than that one using 2 sockets. Again less money for Microsoft, if you expect most running them on multiple sockets, dream on, because they need to sell to stay in the market, and if Windows costs to much per month vs the other one that is offering it almost for free, you're out of business. So everyone will adjust their offerings.

    3. Customers buying Windows, same provider, same VM specs, will run worse than buying the same VM in the same provider but instead with CentOS. With Windows, the provider will put him under the Windows Node, (because of licensing) with allot of other Windows VM on them, this will be usually one socket, and will have as much VMs on them as possible to lower as much per VM cost as they can. Result? Awful performance, or at least way slower than just choosing Linux exactly in the same provider.

    I don't know about you, but providers will not have a problem putting that new Linux VM under a six socket server, or if one node is overloaded move you around to another one with less traffic. This will not be possible with Windows or at least Microsoft makes it complicate to do so.

    Also, since most agree DC edition is the way the go, why is Microsoft even offering Standard then? Its useless. Just 2 days after opening this post, I had some else again request me Windows Server 2008 Web Edition, in even in the 32 bit edition because they had a specific requirement for lower ram (32 bit) and a software that needs that platform. But Microsoft things everyone is happy about running that crap 2012 which nobody wants.

    And you guys know exactly what im talking about there. Who many of you selling Windows are actually getting requests for 2012? Im sure most of you, for the small requests you even get for Windows, which is strange, unless someone needs .net or MSQL, they surely are requesting 2008 editions.

    If Microsoft had a hard time moving into data centers, they know are committing suicide. Because if you donīt get hosting companies on board you are not going to breach that market ever. And in order to do this, you need hosting companies offering Windows Server all over their services. Hosting companies are not stupid. They will only offer this if they make money out of it and if they are selling them. Nobody is making money on the Windows licenses in the first place, most of them just offer them as a choice. So there is not $$$ incentive there. And sales of Windows VM is not going to be huge if prices are expensive.

    This is a stupid move on Microsoft and let me tell you why. If you happen to offer a newbie VPS customer Windows or Linux, he will always, always choose Windows. Because most newbies or people getting into their own first server stuff, do not know Linux. They will gladly run the same thing they run at home or in the office. Microsoft would absolutely displace Linux on small servers and VPS. All this people buying a 100$ server or 50$ vps, upgrading from shared, would jump into Windows. What does Microsoft do instead? It makes a scheme where Windows is higher priced on entry points, so only advanced users that only require specific Windows platforms will buy it. Its not cost effective for new users anymore.

    Every single person I gave the choice they would rather choose Windows. But the minute you tell them its going to cost him 20$ more a month, he actually decides to learn around Linux, just to save him his monthly costs. They end up asking, but I can run my website and email? Answer yes. Ok, so choose give me Linux then, I will run a control panel on it and problem solved.

    If the same option was free or price entry, like 10$ for the same user, he would actually consider it.

    The licensing before 2012 allowed this price entry, it was called Web Edition and you could license per VM, so if you had a node running Linux exclusively and one person actually wanted Windows, no problem. Now you need to charge him a high fee or actually refuse him since you it would be not cost effective to build a Windows node only for a one customer requesting it. And for those targeting Windows, they will do exactly what I pointed several times before here. How long until we see posts in Google

    Linux vs Windows performance threads.

    Everyone telling how Linux is so much faster than Windows and how Server 2012 is so slow and performance sucks. Yea, we will know exactly why....providers putting 50 Windows VM in a one socket datacenter edition to stay price competitive.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,623
    nibb, you make far too many assumptions. FAR TOO MANY.

    I already told you even with 2 sockets, 2 Licenses 2012 DC and 12 VMs on a node it is LESS EXPENSIVE per server than you paid for your coveted 2008 Web Edition.


    And it doesn't take 50 of them to break even, 12 can pay for things just fine.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by (Stephen) View Post
    nibb, you make far too many assumptions. FAR TOO MANY.

    I already told you even with 2 sockets, 2 Licenses 2012 DC and 12 VMs on a node it is LESS EXPENSIVE per server than you paid for your coveted 2008 Web Edition.


    And it doesn't take 50 of them to break even, 12 can pay for things just fine.
    I donīt make assumptions. I do not even put 10 VMS on a node with 2 sockets.

    There is a difference between offering budget VMs for as much people as possible and high performance ones for specific users.

    Hell, I even sometimes only run 4 VMs per hardware. So tell me exactly how you are supposed to offer high performance machines under this new SPLA system. A datacenter edition for 2 or 3 Windows VM per node?

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    76
    nibb - if you are trying to price linux and windows hosting equally (for the same specs) I think you're going about things the wrong way. Everyone I've spoken to about windows hosting expects to may more than they would for the same specs on linux. (For me, I expect to pay 50-100% above the linux cost depending on specs.) People who really need windows hosting because they're running ASP.NET/MSSQL apps will be factoring in the extra licence costs as part of the app hosting requirements. For your 'newbie' customers that don't know the difference, if they're just after a simple PHP/MySQL environment to run their wordpress blog, they should be taking linux hosting. (With recent IIS versions there's no technical reason why you can't run PHP on windows, so if you're already paying for windows to host an ASP.NET app you can run your PHP stuff along side it, but for PHP-only linux is the cheaper option.)

    I do agree there's one area that Microsoft seem to have not considered in the new licencing and that's the case where you have a very large linux userbase, but have a requirement for a couple of windows VMs in the mix. As you said, previously you could licence these under web edition, but this is no longer an option. I don't know how MS are pricing essentials edition for SPLA (hence my earlier questions), but based on retail pricing I was expecting (hoping?) this would be a cost-effective alternative up to about 2 VMs for those random customers that needed windows. If this isn't an option, then it sounds like MS's position is - either commit to windows hosting by licencing for datacenter edition and getting a significant windows userbase, or don't bother. I guess the point is that if you're userbase is 98% linux - why bother with windows at all?

    As for your question about why standard edition exists - as there is now no feature difference between std and datacenter, std is intended for the situation where you're not doing any virtualisation. So, if you want to install windows directly on a physical host, use a std licence. If you want to install windows in VMs, licence datacenter for the physical host and run as many windows VMs as you need.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    5,623
    Quote Originally Posted by nibb View Post
    I donīt make assumptions. I do not even put 10 VMS on a node with 2 sockets.

    There is a difference between offering budget VMs for as much people as possible and high performance ones for specific users.

    Hell, I even sometimes only run 4 VMs per hardware. So tell me exactly how you are supposed to offer high performance machines under this new SPLA system. A datacenter edition for 2 or 3 Windows VM per node?
    Yes, you are making huge assumptions. sometimes I only run 4 per VM too, but they pay enough to cover the license costs if they are, and it is a non factor. You are repeatedly falsely saying 'hosts will run 50 VMs on a single socket with one datacenter license' due to that, and that is just not the case and you know it, but keep repeating it over and over.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by KiwiDave View Post
    nibb - if you are trying to price linux and windows hosting equally (for the same specs) I think you're going about things the wrong way. Everyone I've spoken to about windows hosting expects to may more than they would for the same specs on linux. (For me, I expect to pay 50-100% above the linux cost depending on specs.) People who really need windows hosting because they're running ASP.NET/MSSQL apps will be factoring in the extra licence costs as part of the app hosting requirements. For your 'newbie' customers that don't know the difference, if they're just after a simple PHP/MySQL environment to run their wordpress blog, they should be taking linux hosting. (With recent IIS versions there's no technical reason why you can't run PHP on windows, so if you're already paying for windows to host an ASP.NET app you can run your PHP stuff along side it, but for PHP-only linux is the cheaper option.)

    I do agree there's one area that Microsoft seem to have not considered in the new licencing and that's the case where you have a very large linux userbase, but have a requirement for a couple of windows VMs in the mix. As you said, previously you could licence these under web edition, but this is no longer an option. I don't know how MS are pricing essentials edition for SPLA (hence my earlier questions), but based on retail pricing I was expecting (hoping?) this would be a cost-effective alternative up to about 2 VMs for those random customers that needed windows. If this isn't an option, then it sounds like MS's position is - either commit to windows hosting by licencing for datacenter edition and getting a significant windows userbase, or don't bother. I guess the point is that if you're userbase is 98% linux - why bother with windows at all?

    As for your question about why standard edition exists - as there is now no feature difference between std and datacenter, std is intended for the situation where you're not doing any virtualisation. So, if you want to install windows directly on a physical host, use a std licence. If you want to install windows in VMs, licence datacenter for the physical host and run as many windows VMs as you need.
    "they should be taking linux hosting"

    What we think they should do (customers) and want is a different point of view. You can try to sell them a LAMP server all you want but if the customers wants Windows to host his website, its his choice. Also you said it yourself with that you can run PHP, MYSQL etc, in Windows, so there is no incentive for them to use Linux if they need to learn it from scratch.

    In my case my experience is exactly the other way. Its very dummy systems admins that need and want Windows. Newbie users that hardly know what a server is are the ones that require or want Windows. So this are the entry users. Expert system administrators, or companies with heavy database requirements, always without a question ask linux.

    So Microsoft is blowing their starter entry level customers. Why exactly would you run Windows if even yourself said it requires more hardware requirements?

    On my experience Windows was the perfect fit for those new to servers that did not knew otherwise.

    Yes, Standard is per socket, not 2 socket minimum. This was confirmed by me by Microsoft.

    So I guess, the only cost effective option is Datacenter. Does this means you should offer Datacenter edition to every new Virtual Machine? I guess so, even for those that donīt want it or even need it.

    And this not a rant about the new editions. Its about the new way they require this to be licensed. Completely unproductive for today's virtual environments. Did I forget to tell you you cannot mix licenses? So if you run Datacenter edition 2012 in one hardware, and a customers need 2008 R2 you are pretty much screwed in that server as far as I know. It all or nothing.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,455
    Quote Originally Posted by (Stephen) View Post
    Yes, you are making huge assumptions. sometimes I only run 4 per VM too, but they pay enough to cover the license costs if they are, and it is a non factor. You are repeatedly falsely saying 'hosts will run 50 VMs on a single socket with one datacenter license' due to that, and that is just not the case and you know it, but keep repeating it over and over.
    Because this week I purchased 10 Windows VMS from different providers. The cheapest one was I think burst.net and it took the VM 5 hours to update. The same Windows server which took 20 minutes in my enviroment, same updates.

    Even making one click on that VM causes 100% CPU. Guess why? They are probably running 100 windows VM in that single Intel E5645

    Yes, pay low and expect low, but in more expensive providers performance was pretty much sucky.

    I donīt know assume things. Im talking from experience. I had services in almost all companies that ever advertised here in WHT and I can pretty much tell you which suck and which are great, in particular when I compare them to my own hardware.

    History will confirm what I say. Lets see how Windows market share drops in server usage worldwide in the following years.

    Also assuming most providers where pricing Web Edition at from 10$, to 15$ a month, you pretty much know exactly how many minimum servers you need to host in a hardware to break the Datacenter edition price. And numbers do not seem nice.
    Last edited by nibb; 05-27-2013 at 07:47 PM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hetzner 4S server and microsoft Hyper-V 2012 server
    By maniarrivu in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 07:56 PM
  2. Microsoft selects Toronto to host 2012 conference
    By MrTerrence in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-18-2011, 06:02 PM
  3. Is Plesk Forcing You to Upgrade???
    By KrazyBob in forum Hosting Software and Control Panels
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 04:18 AM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-01-2008, 09:24 AM
  5. Microsoft: To secure IE, upgrade to XP
    By BennyG in forum Web Hosting Lounge
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-24-2004, 04:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •