Single Processor licenses and the VMware Virtualization Environment

[IT_Architect]

Consider the follwing:

• A 4 core processor is seen as a single processor for licensing purposes with Microsoft software.

• VMware virtualizes each core as a logical processor.

• Does Microsoft see these cores as coming from the same processor?
  
  

[weinstein5]

This is not from VMware but from Microsoft's document Licensing Microsoft Server Products in Virtual Environments on

• Software run in a virtual OSE is licensed based on the number of virtual processors used by that virtual OSE, rather than all the physical processors in the server. For licensing purposes, a virtual processor is considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor on the underlying physical hardware system.

• If you run the software in virtual OSEs, you need a license for each virtual processor used by those virtual OSEs on a particular server, whether the total number of virtual processors is less than or more than the number of physical processors in that server.

So directly from Microsoft looks like you license per virtual processor

If you find this or any other answer useful please consider awarding points by marking the answer correct or helpful

[IT_Architect]

Your answer doesn't address the question.

Consider MSSQL 2008. Some of the versions are restricted to 1 physical processor, regardless of the number of cores. It doesn't matter if you have a 8 physical processor machine, it will only use one physical processor. So if it has 4 or 6 cores per processor, does that mean MSSQL 2008 sees a virtual processor as a physical processor, and I only get 1/4 to 1/6 the performance under VMware because MS sees eacj virtual processor as a physical processor, or does VMware have a way to tell it that the virtual processors it sees are from the same physical processor? It's easy to "shoot from the hip" and say that MS can't tell in a virtual environment, but there is software that can tell. The question is, can / does Microsoft? Since VMware is selling virtualization, I would think they would be know that answer since it is a key issue in determining the layout of the hardware in the datacenter.

[TomHowarth]

Consider the follwing:

• * A 4 core processor is seen as a single processor for licensing purposes with Microsoft software.

Correct, on physical hardware MS SQL sees a 2,4,6 or 8 core as a single processor

• VMware virtualizes each core as a logical processor.

again that is correct, VMware present each core as a single vCPU.

• Does Microsoft see these cores as coming from the same processor?

No.if does not. for licensing purposes the "Virtual Hardware is considered the installation point, therefore a DuaL SMP guest will require two Processor licenses, regardless of the underlying hardware. this is explained in the document David posted. By the way, I too am an IT archictect. and have been involved with designs for over 4 years. futrher, it is really an answer from MS you require not VMware as it concerns MS licensing not VMwares.

I can sling guesses with the best of them such as "It would be impossible in a virtualization environment...", or "There is no way that..." This is one of those questions where I don't want to hear from an indian, I want to hear the answer from a chief. A chief is one that is employed full-time by and gets a weekly paycheck from VMware. The answer impacts the entire layout plan for the datacenter where a wrong answer translates into a $10,000 oops.> > This is not from VMware but from Microsoft's document Licensing Microsoft Server Products in Virtual Environments on

• Software run in a virtual OSE is licensed based on the number of virtual processors used by that virtual OSE, rather than all the physical processors in the server. For licensing purposes, a virtual processor is considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor on the underlying physical hardware system.

• If you run the software in virtual OSEs, you need a license for each virtual processor used by those virtual OSEs on a particular server, whether the total number of virtual processors is less than or more than the number of physical processors in that server.

>> So directly from Microsoft looks like you license per virtual processor

>Your answer doesn't address the question.

how do you consider that the answer does not address the question? it is very forthright in its language

>Consider MSSQL 2008. Some of the versions are restricted to 1 physical processor, regardless of the number of cores. It doesn't matter if you have a 8 physical processor machine, it will only use one physical processor. So if it has 4 or 6 cores per processor, does that mean MSSQL 2008 sees a virtual processor as a physical processor, and I only get 1/4 to 1/6 the performance under VMware because MS sees each virtual processor as a physical processor,

That is correct

or does VMware have a way to tell it that the virtual processors it sees are from the same physical processor?

No it does not it is a Hypervisor, it completle masks the underlying hardware from the the Guests.

>It's easy to "shoot from the hip" and say that MS can't tell in a virtual environment, but there is software that can tell. The question is, can / does Microsoft? Since VMware is selling virtualization, I would think they would be know that answer since it is a key issue in determining the layout of the hardware in the datacenter.

The licening rules are the same for Hyper-V and XenServer. We are not Shooting from the hip as you put it, that document is quite specific, a Virtual CPU is exactly that a CPU for licesening purposes. the same is the case for Hyper-V and XenServer. Virtualisation completely masks the physical hardware form the Virtual Guests, and therefore subsquently from the installed OS. To the OS and the Application, the Guest is the physical machine, it has no way of knowing what it is running on, therefore from a licesning point of view, (and I have verified this with Microsoft) you license your guest with the number of CPU's you have in your Guest. not your host.

So yes, from your point of view you do get a 1/4 to a 1/6 the performance of the CPU under a Virtualised Guest, however if your really require that much performance from a SQL box then it really is not a good candidate for virtualisation, further in my opinion, an MSSQL based system designed for a single CPU regardless of cores seldom utilsed the host machine to the maximum.

If you found this or any other answer useful please consider the use of the Helpful or correct buttons to award points

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

Blog: www.planetvm.net

[mreferre]

>I want to hear the answer from a chief. A chief is one that

>is employed full-time by and gets a weekly paycheck from VMware

It's not a matter of being a moron or a "chief". It's a matter of .... you want an official answer from someone that is accountable / liable.

I would say a public forum like this is not the right place to find an answer like that. Talk to your VMware/MS sales rep.

Massimo.

[TomHowarth]

And I repeat my statement that is is an Answer from Microsoft that you need not VMware

If you found this or any other answer useful please consider the use of the Helpful or correct buttons to award points

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

Blog: www.planetvm.net

[Ken_Cline]

For licensing purposes, a virtual processor is considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor on the underlying physical hardware system.

Based on this, I suspect (no, I don't KNOW) that your MS product is going to license the product installed in the VM based (at a minimum) on the number of cores present in a single socket on the physical host. This makes sense, since the VM will see the physical processor (i.e. if your VM is assigned a single vCPU, it will "see" a single core of the underlying HW, but it will identify that vCPU as being a multi-core device - even though it can use only one of the cores...). Hence, if you install a SQL Server with a single vCPU on a quad-core system (for example: Quad-Core Intel Xeon 7300), it will still "see" a Quad-Core Intel Xeon 7300 Series vCPU - but it won't be able to use all four cores.

So...as others have said, if you want an authoritative answer, you'll have to get it from Microsoft. VMware can tell you what is presented to the VM, but they can't tell you what MS is going to do with what they are given.

Ken Cline

Technical Director, Virtualization

Wells Landers

TVAR Solutions, A Wells Landers Group Company

VMware Communities User Moderator

[meistermn]

Did you read the examples and look at the figures in following document.

Physical and Virtual Processors

A physical processor is a processor in a physical hardware system. Physical OSEs use physical processors. A virtual processor is a processor in a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. Virtual OSEs use virtual processors. For licensing purposes, a virtual processor is considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor on the underlying physical hardware system..

Software run in a virtual OSE is licensed based on the number of virtual processors used by that virtual OSE, rather than all the physical processors in the server. For licensing purposes, a virtual processor is considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor on the underlying physical hardware system.

Virtual Processors Have the Same Number of Cores and Threads as Physical Processors-Each Fraction of a Virtual Processor Counts as a Full Virtual Processor

This section is relevant if you are using Per Processor products on multicore processor systems. To boost reliability and performance, virtualization technology can allocate resources from separate physical processors in the server to create a virtual processor for use by a particular OSE. Virtual processors are considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor in the underlying physical hardware system. Microsoft adopted this definition to enable you to take advantage of the licensing policy we announced in 2004 for multicore processors.¹ If the physical processors in the server have two cores, each virtual processor also has two cores from a licensing perspective, even if the cores are allocated from separate physical processors.

For example, in Figure 7 below, the virtual processor used by the virtual OSE on the left is allocated a core from physical processor 1 and a core from physical processor 2. Although that virtual processor is using cores from different physical processors, it is considered to be a single virtual processor because it has the same number of cores as the physical processors in the server. Consequently, you only need one license each for SQL Server (licensed Per Processor) and BizTalk Server for server A.²

I like this licence mode, because if i had running a ms software on a physical server with one single core and now virtualise it to four or six core physical server,

the vm can have 1 to 4 vcpu's (6 is at the moment not possible). So i can put more users on this vm than on the old physical hardware!!!

And if I have had on old two or four socket single server, with licences based on processor, than I can build several 2 x 4VCPU or 4 x 4 VPU Vm's with one application software licence.

Formular : 1 x virtual processor = 1 x physical processor x number of cores

[RParker]

This is one of those questions where I don't want to hear from an indian, I want to hear the answer from a chief. A chief is one that is employed full-time by and gets a weekly paycheck from VMware. The answer impacts the entire layout plan for the datacenter where a wrong answer translates into a $10,000 oops.

you should consider removing these tag lines from your posts. They are offensive, especially when you consider A) VM Ware provides these COMMUNITY forums for your benefit. B) A VM Ware employee isn't necessarily more qualified to answer these questions any more than people in this forum, since we may ALL be professionally employeed by a company and do this FULL time.

Also you were answered by at least 3 of the top people anywhere regarding VM Ware and Virtualization. So by putting that little '...weekly paycheck from VMware...' remark is basically saying you want support from VM Ware. If you expect VM Ware to respond you should CALL VM Ware for support and not use the forums.

But don't ASSUME that people on here don't have the knowledge or ability to support you, because I am here to tell you, they do, and I would put their expertise above VM Ware in many if not all but a few exceptions.

So do us all a favor, play along with our group but if you don't feel comfortable with the advice then seek your advice direct from the source, but that remark makes us feel like you are treating us like you deserve a first class seat on a economy flight with a free pass, while the rest of us sit in coach. We are helping you. Even VM Ware could provide the wrong answer.

[weinstein5]

Well said RParker -

If you find this or any other answer useful please consider awarding points by marking the answer correct or helpful

[IT_Architect]

>you should consider removing these tag lines from your posts.<

I think you're right.

>Call VMware<

I did. I spoke with a salesman who didn't know or understand. I spoke with an engineer who did understand, but didn't know. He said he will e-mail me back.

[Craig_Baltzer]

From a purely technical perspective, each vCPU is seen a seperate single core, single logical processor in the VM regardless of the underlying physical CPU configuration. You can see this by running msinfo32 on a W2K8 or Vista VM (these OSs have a newer version of msinfo32 which is core/logical processor aware). So for example on my Dell PowerEdge 1950 III with 2 x quad core CPUs...

• W2K8 installed on the physical box. MSINFO32 reports

• Processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33Ghz, 2327Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processors (s)

• Processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33Ghz, 2327Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processors (s)

• ESX 3.5u3 installed on the physical box, W2K8 installed in a VM with 4 vCPUs allocated to it, MSINFO32 reports

• Processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33Ghz, 2327Mhz, 1 Core(s), 1 Logical Processors (s)

• Processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33Ghz, 2327Mhz, 1 Core(s), 1 Logical Processors (s)

• Processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33Ghz, 2327Mhz, 1 Core(s), 1 Logical Processors (s)

• Processor - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5345 @ 2.33Ghz, 2327Mhz, 1 Core(s), 1 Logical Processors (s)

So from a VMware perspective things are being presented to the guest as seperate, single core CPUs. So this is a MS question on whether they detect that their "per processor" licened applications are running on VMs and handle the number of processors they "see" differently...

[TomHowarth]

Interesting information, I did not know that win2k8 had a new MSinfo. but as I said it is still a MS question not a VMware one.

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

Blog: www.planetvm.net

[meistermn]

First:

There is nothing written or existed for a licensing model based on per core or per thread in 2008 by microsoft docu!!!

Licence Model "per processor" :

1. Definition:

"per processor" = per socket

2. Definition

A processor can have one to six cores in 2008!!!

1 processor = N x core

3. Definition

What is a virtual processor in terms of MS?

Clear definition:

Virtual processors are considered to have the same number of threads and cores as each physical processor in the underlying physical hardware system

4. Definition

What is a logical core?

5. Definition

What is VSMP really ?

e.g. a VM with 4 VCPU:

On a 4 socket single core (old server) , the VM with 4 VCPU will use 4 separete socket.

On 2 socket dual core , the VM with 4 VCPU will use two separete sockets and 4 cores.

On a 2 socket or 4 socket quad core , the Vm with 4 VCPU will use one socket and 4 cores.

Keep in mind, that in todays AMD Quad Core Servers , ESX tries to run the VM with 4 VCPU on one socket, because of the local memory. If ESX would place it on to sockets, than the VM gets from the second socket its memory (remote memory) , which decreases performance, because you have one more hop to the remote memory.

The same you will see in Intel Nehalem. Allthough i do not see why it worth to run a 8 VCPU VM in vmware esx4 or citrix xen5 before Intels Beckton or AMD Montreal in 2010 are out.

6. Definition

Windows 2008 Datacenter

The Windows 2008 Datacenter is based on processor and has the function to hot addcpu and memory.

The problem is with, you can install many vm instances with a windows 2008 datacenter os , but most application software will not install, because,

because the setup of the application software detects a version of windows 2008 datacenter os and not a windows 2008 standrad edition.

Yes with windows 2008 datateredition you can install windows 2008 standard edtion, b ut you will lost the feature hot add cpu and memory of windows 2008 datatcenter. This means many application vendors must change their os setup detection or ms has to implemted hot app cpu and hot add mem to windows 2008 standrad and windows 2008 enterprise os version.

[Craig_Baltzer]

Thanks, I'm quite aware of the MS definitions and licensing model. I was pointing out from a technical perspective what the OS in the VM sees, and noting that from an OS perspective, in a virtualized environment, the OS sees additional "sockets/processors" when the vCPU count is increased, not additional "cores/logical processors". It's what happens in the real world when this stuff runs, and that's the OS running in the VM has no visibility to what ESX is doing in terms of running x number of cores from the same physical CPU, it all looks like individual physical CPUs to the VM....

[IT_Architect]

Hopefully VMware will get back with me in the next day or so.

VMware is positioning its products for the enterprise as an alternate environment to run other people's software on the pemise that it is more efficient. Licensing by the socket is the defacto standard. I don't see how that puts the ball in Microsoft's, Oracle's, etc. court. That's like the tail wagging the dog. People buy operating systems, DBMSes, and computers to run their businesses. If there were no virtualization not much would change. In an enterprise type environment virtualization products must justify their existence on more efficient utilization of hardware while still being as or more reliable and flexible. VMware is the one that knows about the sockets and cores and it is their environment that they are exposing to the apps and operating systems.

I'm just doing my due-dilligence for my next datacenter project. I've been down this path several times in the past and it has never quite made sense for one reason or another. Maybe it works for some people like the mythical bank who for some reason had 36 stand-alone servers and were about to do an building addition for more, but I'm also aware that not everything that other people do makes sense. Up to this point, virtualization has only really worked for prototyping and development for me. We are migrating our server base and I'm stitching together a strategy for that. I'm in the process of determining if virtualization makes sense today for a real data center, running industry standard software, performing under substantial loads. Since I evaluated last time, processors with multiple cores have become common place and the defacto standard for licensing software is by socket. Thus the first and obvious question is, how does that affect the value proposition of a virtual environment? If virtualization only fits companies that for some reason has lots of servers, running lots of operating systems, that are doing very little, then that's not where I live, nor do I see how load balancing and live migration fit that scenario. I'm bringing servers across and I've delayed setting them up. I like the mobility that comes with the virtual environments, but it again may not work for me this time. If any virtualization vendor has a rabbit in their hat, and thought this through, it will be VMware.

[Dave_Mishchenko]

Licensing by the socket is the defacto standard. I don't see how that puts the ball in Microsoft's, Oracle's, etc. court.

As stated above, you'll only be able to get a definitive answer from the software vender and not VMware as it is the vender that sets the rules for licensing within any virtualization environment. Anything you get from VMware wether that be from a rep or their website will just be repeating what comes from MS. What resources at MS have you spoken to about this?

Do you have a list of products that you're wondering about? For example, with SQL 2008 Standard, if I buy a processor license I can create a single VM with a single virtual CPU. But if I license all physical CPUs in the host with SQL 2008 Enterprise, then I can run an unlimited number of VMs / vCPUs each with it's own install of SQL 2008. Here's a good starting page and since it is MS's website it much more authoritative than what you'll get from VMware.

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

I like the mobility that comes with the virtual environments, but it again may not work for me this time.

Vmotion and the ability to move VMs is great, but you also have to consider the licensing implications of that as well. With SQL 2008 for example, you can only move a license from server to server every 90 days and in that case they mean physical host even though you may be running SQL in a VM.

[weinstein5]

As others have posted it is up to the software company to decide how they will license their software in a virtual environment - because the license agreement is between, you the end user, and the software company, Microsoft.

In terms does virtualization make sense it wall depends upon the level an organization wants to virtualizes - I have worked with organizations that have virtualizes everything because they wanted to maximize on operating cost savings and were willing to accept the some of the performance penalties on heavily loaded physical servers with high utilizations - while others just stuck with the low hanging fruit of the lightly utilized servers (in the less than 10%) which accounted for 70%-80% of their total server population - organizations of all sizes are finding that virtualization makes sense and something thye need to do maintain competitve while holding down costs.

If you find this or any other answer useful please consider awarding points by marking the answer correct or helpful

[IT_Architect]

>and the software company, Microsoft<

....,and Oracle, and Borland, and on and on. We're going to have to just disagree. This isn't about licensing, this is about if VMware makes sense when used with common data center operating systems and applications licenses. VMware is where I'm going for the answer. They are the ones that must justify their environment in light of the defacto standard licensing out there today. They are the ones that need to change if their value proposition doesn't work with the defacto standard. VMware is the layer that knows about the number of physical processors. VMware is the one presenting the fake server to the applications and operating systems. They are the ones that can fix the value proporsition if it currently doesn't work. Theirs is the product people don't buy if they don't. Virtualizing has been going on with hard drives for a long time. They fake being WD1003 compatable which is limited to 32 megs. Those that weren't good at it, are no longer here. It was about compatibility then as it is now. How compatible is VMware with the products people use in business today? In this case the licensing. We're going to buy the other products. The only product I'm not sure makes sense at the moment is VMware. It may be that all virtualization products have the same problem, but that doesn't change the fact that if there companies are using other than unmetered software, then the cost of the virtualization product is immaterial. They will lose any advantage and more in licensing and complexity which is precisely why virtualization is not ahead of where it is today. Like I've said, I've been down this road several times before and I was prepared for diappointment, but you have to check because as with many new technologies, they just take time to have the pieces click into place. Things are so close today, and now with MS in the mix, it is likely that a lot of things will change in 2009 that will increase the viability of virtualization in more areas.

If the problem does exist, as people here say it does, and that is confirmed by VMware, I can wait. All vendors then likely have the same issue. Either the virtualization environments need to adjust, or the licensing does. Which way that goes in the relatively near term depends on the big players rather than VMware. Nobody can give me a Microsoft document and say here, read this, this is how Microsoft looks at it. They are all over the map, depending on the product. Some places they are giving away the farm, and other places it's completely impractical. It shouldn't be surprising that the company that everyone loves to hate has thought through this long before everyone else, IBM. Over the past few years they have developed a rating system, like horsepower or KW for engines, for different types of loads. If adopted industry-wide, it could serve as a consistent yardstick that everyone could use to plan and compare and could be of great benefit to consumer and vendor alike.

I haven't heard back from the engineer yet as he promised. No answer is also and answer. I'm out of time.

[meistermn]

90-day reassignment rule is not true any more.

Page 2 at Application Server License Mobility November 2008

Details

With Microsoft’s new terms for certain products, Microsoft waives the 90-day reassignment rule, allowing you to reassign licenses from one server to another within a server farm as frequently as you need to. This allows you to freely move both licenses and running instances within a server farm from one server to another. In the example above, so long as you are not running the software on both servers at one time, you can do this without having to assign licenses to both servers at the same time.

Microsoft changed this licence term, as they had the quick migration feature in their virtualization solution. So good for VMotion.

With Windows 2008 R2 in 2010 and their live migration tool , the rule will not existed any more.