Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?
-
Evolving along with companies’ needs, Microsoft is about to release new Windows Server 2019. Feeling comfortable with the good old 2016 version? Get ready for something even better!
Learn more about the features Windows Server 2019 will bring to your IT environment in the full article by Karim Buzdar, a Microsoft Certified Solutions Associate for Server Infrastructure.
-
Just out of curiosity, how many of you have used Server Core/Nano recently?
-
@darek-hamann Been running Hyper-V 2016 and Server 2016 for a while but haven't tried Core/Nano.
-
This will be interesting to see as the way of managing servers is changing slightly for some and I see people already up on arms but overall is a great change.
-
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
-
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
Microsoft licensing or StarWind?
Why would microsoft change a licensing format that works for a ton of people?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
Microsoft licensing or StarWind?
Why would microsoft change a licensing format that works for a ton of people?
Microsoft. Because it doesn't work for a ton of people. Why did they change it in first place? What was wrong with per socket licensing?
-
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
Microsoft licensing or StarWind?
Why would microsoft change a licensing format that works for a ton of people?
Microsoft. Because it doesn't work for a ton of people. Why did they change it in first place? What was wrong with per socket licensing?
Per Core is cheaper, and easier to correctly license. . . per socket could easily make you purchase licensing for cores that you don't have.
16 core minimum is really simple since many systems come with dual socket systems.
An 8-core single socket would be simple, just multiply by 2 and you have what you need for core licensing. The CALs have remained the same.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
Microsoft licensing or StarWind?
Why would microsoft change a licensing format that works for a ton of people?
Microsoft. Because it doesn't work for a ton of people. Why did they change it in first place? What was wrong with per socket licensing?
Per Core is cheaper, and easier to correctly license. . . per socket could easily make you purchase licensing for cores that you don't have.
Care to explain that? When you bought per socket licenses, cores didn't matter, so how could you buy licenses for cores when you weren't buying licenses for cores?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
16 core minimum is really simple since many systems come with dual socket systems.
An 8-core single socket would be simple, just multiply by 2 and you have what you need for core licensing. The CALs have remained the same.
I don't see that being cheaper for 12 core AMD CPUs, and we had even 16 core CPUs years ago. 50%-100% more vs per socket licensing.
-
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
16 core minimum is really simple since many systems come with dual socket systems.
An 8-core single socket would be simple, just multiply by 2 and you have what you need for core licensing. The CALs have remained the same.
I don't see that being cheaper for 12 core AMD CPUs, and we had even 16 core CPUs years ago. 50%-100% more vs per socket licensing.
I'm too tired to argue this at the moment.
Summoning @scottalanmiller
-
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
Windows is not going to stop licensing per core. It's the sensible solution. Licensing by processor works even less. It definitely hurts AMD, no question. But they have to license in a sensible way and short of doing a sliding licensing cost by FLOPS or something, this is what has to be done.
-
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
16 core minimum is really simple since many systems come with dual socket systems.
An 8-core single socket would be simple, just multiply by 2 and you have what you need for core licensing. The CALs have remained the same.
I don't see that being cheaper for 12 core AMD CPUs, and we had even 16 core CPUs years ago. 50%-100% more vs per socket licensing.
It's not cheaper, it's a flat price for processors at the roughly equivalent performance. It's that the amount of power a single socket has gone up dramatically and licensing by socket would be a huge drop in cost compared to the past.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@dustinb3403 said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
@marcinozga said in Windows Server 2019 is just around the corner. What it brings us, and why are we so excited?:
Is it still licensed per core? That was real punch in the balls for AMD users with 2016, if they kept that licensing model in 2019, I'll pass again.
Microsoft licensing or StarWind?
Why would microsoft change a licensing format that works for a ton of people?
Microsoft. Because it doesn't work for a ton of people. Why did they change it in first place? What was wrong with per socket licensing?
Per Core is cheaper, and easier to correctly license. . . per socket could easily make you purchase licensing for cores that you don't have.
16 core minimum is really simple since many systems come with dual socket systems.
An 8-core single socket would be simple, just multiply by 2 and you have what you need for core licensing. The CALs have remained the same.
Single socket 16 core procs are, I think, the new hot spot. This is what makes the most sense for the average SMB Microsoft shop. Enterprises are not affected by the licensing, non-Windows shops aren't affected, shops smaller than the minimum (needing less than minimum capacity) aren't affected.
Only people who are affected are those that need more than the minimum, but less than EA agreement. And they have a lot of options to balance things. But single sockets, Intel or AMD, with 16 cores gives you an extreme amount of power, at the minimum price and is suitable for nearly any SMB.
-
You only lose on the core licensing if you have more than 16 cores on two processors or you have 1 processor wiht less than 16 cores.
1 processor with 16 cores = 1 16 core server license
1 processor with 12 cores = 1 16 core server license
1 processor with 8 cores = 1 16 core server license
2 processors with 8 cores = 1 16 core server license
2 processors with 12 cores = 1 16 core server license + 4 2 core server license packsMicrosoft designed it around the most common system being sold. Intel Xeon dual proc 8 core systems.
