Microsoft Licensing

[divine_kane]

Hi

I'm just checking out Microsofts standing as regards to licensing for VM. I've already searched the forums and found a helpful Artical stating that for Windows 2003 Server you can run 1 physical instance and 4 VM instances.

Does anybody know if this applies to Windows 2000 server as well?

Kane

[chandlm]

Check out the following:

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/virtualization/faq.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/howtobuy/licensing/calculator.mspx

http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/9/68964284-864d-4a6d-aed9-f2c1f8f23e14/virtualization_whi...

I believe the 1 physical/4 virtual applies to Enterprise, not standard. I believe in most cases you can use a current license to run an older version of the same OS but I'm not 100% on that. I don't think the 2000 Server Advanced license has the same rules

[msmenne17]

I believe the 1 physical/4 virtual applies to

Enterprise, not standard. I believe in most cases

you can use a current license to run an older version

of the same OS but I'm not 100% on that. I don't

think the 2000 Server Advanced license has the same

rules

Correct.. It applies to Server Enterprise. The \*paid license* allows you to run older versions IF you have a SA or Enterprise agreement with Microsoft. I'm not sure how this would apply to Windows 2000. I'm guessing Windows 2000 would be covered by the 1:4 rule as well as long as you have 2003 Enterprise licenses.

I looked at this a while back and it's not as good of a deal as it seams. Windows Server 2003 standard is roughtly $1,000. Windows Server 2003 Entperprise is roughtly $3,000. If you're running Windows as your host, you get to run 5 servers on one piece of hardware (saving 2 licenses). If you're running VMware, you can run 4 servers per license on one piece of hardware (saving only 1 license). It is a savings, but the savings is not what it appears.

[chandlm]

I agree...

On the other hand if you have large enough servers to utilize the 2003 Datacenter licensing features, you CAN save some cash there...

I'm always worried that they will pull that 3 months after I do it and end up just having to go back to individual licensing anyway

[msmenne17]

I looked into the Datacenter option. The problem is that with Datacenter, you can't buy one license and be good to go with multiple ESX Servers. The VMs are tied to the license and the license is only good for one physical server.

With newer hardware, we might be starting to see the ability to leverage that license more.

[TomHowarth]

another major issue with DataCenter edition is that it is licensed per processor and also is tied to the machine, therefore if you have 4 hosts with 4 CPU's each you will need to purchase 16cpus of DataCenter at approximately $3000 per processor. or $48,000 so you are looking at at least 48 windows hosts before you start to move into savings

[chandlm]

Agreed, but using the 'average' accepted number of VMs/CPU (4 is usually quoted, right?) you would have the ability to run 64 VMs on those 16 CPUs....

I think it's a great thing to look at during a yearly MS true up and compare what would have been spent either way.

[TomHowarth]

I agree totally with what you are saying, however if you have lower utilisation due, the situation is not so compelling

[chandlm]

Yep, and imagine telling everyone how much money you can save and finding out you saved zero or worse, spent more than you needed.

That's why it's a decision I haven't made yet. Still hoping that during True-Up I can take a look at actual numbers. Even then, things change so fast that you never know.

Doesn't the Datacenter license get rid of the issue where VMotion technically breaks the licensing/EULA for Server 2003? If you have unlimited licenses on each then a specific VM wouldn't be tied to that hardware any longer?

Volume Licenses can be reassigned every 90 days from one physical server to another.[/i]

[TomHowarth]

technically ((lawyers head on) maybe. it is a very grey area, it would be very difficult to enforce considering you are not actually utilising the Datacenter media, but it still does not get past the CPU limit though. It would be easier to enforce the Enterprise license model,

[msmenne17]

Wasn't there some caveat that Microsoft requires the customer to have it installed by Microsoft or Unisys?

I seem to remember that Datacenter couldn't be purchased through normal channels (not even SA/EA true-ups).

[msmenne17]

I don't see that anywhere on MS site anymore. The only caveat I see is that you can't buy IA64 editions except from an OEM.

With a dual proc-Qud core box, Datacenter would be $6,000 per server.

That's only 6 Windows Server 2003 standard licenses. That should make a pretty compelling argument to virtualization and cost savings.

I was hitting 10:1 on dual proc single core machines with ease on only 8GB of RAM. YMMV, but based on this, Datacenter actually would have been a good buy.

From Micorosoft's Datacenter page:

Unlimited virtualization rights: Starting October 1, 2006, new servers licensed with Windows Server Datacenter Edition (and previous licenses with new version rights) will have license rights to run an unlimited number of virtualized Windows Server instances.[b] By simply licensing the server’s processors with Windows Server Datacenter Edition, customers will be able to run Windows Server Standard Edition, Enterprise Edition, Datacenter Edition or a mix of the three editions without having to track the number of virtual machines[/b] or pay for additional Windows Server licenses.

[ejewett]

ALL Microsoft licenses are assigned to the physical server, not just Datacenter.

If you have Windows Server Standard and Enterprise Edition licenses, they also must be assigned to physical servers, not VMs. If you are moving the VMs between servers, then you are probably out of compliance. Datacenter is the best way to not worry about compliance, because you can run an unlimited number of virtualized instances of Windows Server.

You should read the white paper on licensing Microsoft's servers for virtualization: http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/8/9/68964284-864d-4a6d-aed9-f2c1f8f23e14/virtualization_whi....

There's also a video: http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=07788dbb-8b8a-46ea-affa-a6ec66927d50.

[msmenne17]

The VMs are only out of compliance if you do not have a license for that particular server. I saw something about migrating before, but I can't find it now.

Datacenter is definitely the way to go. Just pair the Datacenter license with your purchase of VMware for an intial deployment.

Microsoft does have a process in place to upgrade your Enterprise Edition license to Datacenter edition.

[shaneyoder]

If you have Enterprise or Standard on SA you can "step-up" your licenses to DataCenter on SA. That is what we did.

[whynotq]

I have been sent a microsoft volume licensing breif that states a VM must be licensed for each individual Physical machine, so in a 4 node cluster running 50 VMs with standard licenses you need "potentially" 200 standard licenses, 1 for each VM for each Physical box..!

I've re-read it a couple of times (it has pictures as well ) and it's the only way i can interpret it.

so they are basically saying, if you want to run Windows in VMware you have to Buy DataCentre license.

trying to find a download link for this document at the moment.

OK, found it now:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/a/a/7aa89a8b-bf4d-446b-a50c-c9b00024df33/Windows_Server_200...

Message was edited by:

whynotq

[mreferre]

I've re-read it a couple of times (it has pictures as well ) and it's the only

way i can interpret it.

That's the right interpretation. If you can't beat them .... at least try to make money out of their model .....

I wonder how many end-users are compliant to this rule ......

Massimo.