Microsoft Windows Server 2016 Moving To Per-Core Licensing (arstechnica.com)

rbrandis writes: Windows Server 2012 has two main editions, Standard and Datacenter. They had identical features, and differed only in terms of the number of virtual operating system instances they supported. The licenses for both editions were sold in two-socket units; one license was needed for each pair of sockets a system contained.

Windows Server 2016 reinstates the functional differences between Standard and Datacenter editions. Datacenter will include additional storage replication capabilities, a new network stack with richer virtualization options, and shielded virtual machines that protect the content of a virtual machine from the administrator of the host operating system. These features won't be found in the Standard edition.

Windows Server 2016 licensing moves to a per core model. Instead of 2012's two socket license pack, 2016 will use a 2-core pack, with the license cost of each 2016 pack being 1/8th the price of the corresponding 2 socket pack for 2012. Each system running Windows Server 2016 must have a minimum of 8 cores (4 packs) per processor, and a minimum of 16 cores (8 packs) per system.

Comments

Not surprising

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

As someone who is peripherally involved with MS data centers I can tell you that the whole Azure/cloud thing is booming like mad. It's insane.

They literally cannot build data centers fast enough so what they're doing is buying and/or leasing buildings, gutting them, rebuilding them and hardening them to keep up with demand. And they're still not keeping up, there's a huge pent up backlog of demand and capacity that is growing like crazy. They literally can't keep up with the need for secured server space that meets their requirements.

Re:Any real tangible merits to using Windows Serve

[mlts]

I think "making things easier" is being mixed up with "easier to find MS experience than Linux experience."

The problem I encounter, having sat in both worlds, is that each side thinks their stuff is the right hammer, and everything is a nail. The MS guys want to use their wrench as a screwdriver, while the Linux guys want to carve notches in bolts so they can use their screwdriver in place of a wrench.

A couple use cases: Spawning Hadoop instances on OpenStack [1] or AWS is a lot easier with Linux than Windows. It can be done with Windows, but it is a lot easier to find howto guides and such under Linux. Another case is popping up nginx web servers on compute nodes for static content behind a load balancer. That is pretty easy with ansible [2], lsync, and varnish. In Windows, it can be done, but it would require some fancy footwork with SCCM/SCOM/WIM.

On the opposite side, for a massive directory service (something spanning multiple geographical regions, with many employees and company division/org charts that look like spaghetti), AD has a lot more support than the various LDAP platforms [3], and has proven to be good enough, security-wise.

Best thing to do is use both. Windows winds up at the core, Linux/BSD/etc. are at the edge.

[1]: Windows and OpenStack are like oil and water. I've not heard of any OpenStack deployments based on Hyper-V, especially on Kilo and Liberty. I wouldn't be surprised to see it (as Microsoft has embraced Docker in a useful fashion), but not at this stage.

[2]: Ansible is easy to include in the VM image, so it either can have an image pushed to it, or it can hit a Git server, grab its playbooks, then run those.

[3]: I've used other directory services. I would say that AD is a lot less painful than AFS or DFS/DCE. Things can change on a dime, and an AD competitor that can scale and replicate can come out of nowhere, similar to how Ansible/Puppet/Chef/Salt wasn't on anyone's radar a few years ago, but now is a staple of IT/DevOps as of now.