Windows Server 2016 Pricing
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
We have looked at hosted, but the cost is quite high.
Do Government entities get a discount? I know non-profits get it for free.
When I worked in Government there was a major discount. Closed to 50% off.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@coliver said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Out of curiosity, and not trying to rub any more salt, what's the reasoning behind having exchange on-site still?
As a municipality, if the police department is on this server, that is the reason.
Exchange Online is not legally allowed for any organization that is required to meet ... and my mind just blanked on what the acronym is for police investigation chain of evidence compliance.
State level is VCIN (for Virginia) Federal is CJIS. Heck CJIS required a diail/t1 modem for it's Java based program until not too many years ago they started allowing Juniper Hardware Tunnels for the dispatch computers.
You could do hybrid exchange, onsite for PD, 0365 for normal departments.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@coliver said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Out of curiosity, and not trying to rub any more salt, what's the reasoning behind having exchange on-site still?
As a municipality, if the police department is on this server, that is the reason.
Exchange Online is not legally allowed for any organization that is required to meet ... and my mind just blanked on what the acronym is for police investigation chain of evidence compliance.
CJIS?
That might be it. I was in a meeting last month with some people involved with a few municipalities in the St Louis region and they were telling me how they could not move Exchange offsite yet due to CJIS (or whatever acronym I am trying to recall).
They wanted to move but simply could not because evidence was being thrown out by the courts for breaking the control of the evidence.
I think MS has an option that allows compliance now:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office-365-government.aspx -
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...
Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.
Good to know!
The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.
VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.
Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@coliver said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Out of curiosity, and not trying to rub any more salt, what's the reasoning behind having exchange on-site still?
As a municipality, if the police department is on this server, that is the reason.
Exchange Online is not legally allowed for any organization that is required to meet ... and my mind just blanked on what the acronym is for police investigation chain of evidence compliance.
CJIS?
That might be it. I was in a meeting last month with some people involved with a few municipalities in the St Louis region and they were telling me how they could not move Exchange offsite yet due to CJIS (or whatever acronym I am trying to recall).
They wanted to move but simply could not because evidence was being thrown out by the courts for breaking the control of the evidence.
I think MS has an option that allows compliance now:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/office-365-government.aspxNo. That does not make O365 CJIS compliant. It requires the state in question to agree.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/TrustCenter/Compliance/CJIS
https://c.s-microsoft.com/en-us/CMSImages/CJIS-Status-23-US.png?version=0327aa54-afda-b7bb-a9e9-311cf3432102 -
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...
Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.
Good to know!
The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.
VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.
Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.
Server 2012 R2 Was 2 proc's per license. Standard or DataCenter.
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...
Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.
Good to know!
The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.
VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.
Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.
Server 2012 R2 Was 2 proc's per license. Standard or DataCenter.
So if I had 4 physical CPUs running ESXi with 1 Server 2012 R2 VM with 1 vCPU, would I need 2 Server 2012 R2 licenses?
Edit: Would I need 2 Server 2012 R2 Standard Licenses?
-
This post is deleted! -
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
If we're comfortable riding 2012 into the sunset, and can afford Vmware licensing, I'm not sure what the future risk is.
"Can afford" should never be said in IT. IT's role is to find the "best" use for funds, but spend "what can be spent." It's not that any of it isn't affordable, it's what gets you the best environment.
That was @Dashrender's point with the 'And... We're out.' comment. Government always wants to spend all the money it has.
-
@travisdh1 because... government.
-
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...
Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.
Good to know!
The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.
VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.
Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.
Server 2012 R2 Was 2 proc's per license. Standard or DataCenter.
So if I had 4 physical CPUs running ESXi with 1 Server 2012 R2 VM with 1 vCPU, would I need 2 Server 2012 R2 licenses?
Edit: Would I need 2 Server 2012 R2 Standard Licenses?
Yes, it's the number of CPUs that is the factor. There are four. So four means a minimum of two Standard licenses to use that platform. Mentioning the number of VMs and vCPUs are red herrings, they are not part of the decision matrix. It's number of CPUs and number of resulting licenses in 2012. With 2016 we have to additionally count cores. So your numbers might get higher. But under no conditions does the VM count or the vCPU count matter to let you have fewer licenses.
-
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense, but man is that aggressive... I take it licensing some heavy hitting hypervisors is gonna cost a small fortune if you choose to use Hyper-V...
Hyper-V is free regardless of the number of cores.
Good to know!
The MS Server 2016 licensing applies no matter what hypervisor you are running.
VMWare, Hyper-V, XS, or KVM. If you want to install Server 2016 Standard as a VM on your hypervisor, then you have to buy a license that covers the number of cores the system actually has. Irregardless of the number of cores you assign to the VM.
Is that part different than Server 2012 R2? I don't remember the physical CPU count mattering when running ESXi with Server 2012 R2 VMs. That could just be because I don't have that many cores so it didn't apply to me.
It's not core based, it's CPU based. It's always been there.
-
@scottalanmiller But you get to run 2 Server 2012 R2 VMs per server 2012 R2 standard license.
-
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller But you get to run 2 Server 2012 R2 VMs per server 2012 R2 standard license.
But only if you have no more than two CPUs.
-
@scottalanmiller So if you had a 4 CPU host and 3 Server 2012 R2 standard licenses, would you only be able to run 2 Server 2012 R2 VMs or would you be able to run 6?
-
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller So if you had a 4 CPU host and 3 Server 2012 R2 standard licenses, would you only be able to run 2 Server 2012 R2 VMs or would you be able to run 6?
Correct, you would only be able to run 2 VMs. One Standard license per two processors, and you have to license for everything in the box. So you want two VMs, you need two licenses, if you want 4 VMs, you need 4 licenses.
It really bends you mind when you think of an 8 processor chassis.
In this case you would need 4 licenses to just be allowed to run two VMs, you would need 8 licenses to run four VMs, etc. -
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller So if you had a 4 CPU host and 3 Server 2012 R2 standard licenses, would you only be able to run 2 Server 2012 R2 VMs or would you be able to run 6?
Just two.
-
Just when you think you have MS licensing down. Why the hell do they make this so complicated?
-
One more license and you'd be able to run four. Basically going to 4 CPUs cuts your licensing in half.
-
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Just when you think you have MS licensing down. Why the hell do they make this so complicated?
It's always been that way. It's to keep you from gaming the system and putting insanely large instances onto a single VM without paying more for it.
