• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Microsoft shows off early peek at Windows Server 8

Windows Server 8? Christ, I just wish they'd fucking pick a naming convention across the board for all products and stick with it. What's so wrong with years like they've been doing for the past decade?
 
Looks like they are going back to something like the 'NT' schema where you had Workstation -vs- Server, etc. Helps keep kernel revisions straight, but not much else. Using the year designation is effective for moronic IT Directors I work with when explaining how old a platform is.

While interviewing people I've used terms like "we're deploying 2003 workstation" to sift through the idiots and resume fakers.

Then Exchange and SQL have their own incremental names to add to the confusion.

Looks like MS is cearly putting some emphasis on turning up the heat on VMware, but we expected that. Nobody around here though wants to touch the Microsoft VM platforms. Be funny if Microsoft actually does get dragged into the VDI fray much to their own disinterest.
 
Gonna actually be looking into the next version of Hyper-V due to the new retarded licensing scheme from VMware. They are ripping people off now. My servers now cost almost 600% more to license.
 
Yeah....nothing against Hyper-V......it's just not popular in my neck of the woods. I would not exclude terms like 'Fanbois' either when it comes to VMware -vs- Hyper-V, but you don't pick and choose this in a consulting status.

This is a fairly similiar scenario to Microsoft -vs- Netware so many years ago, and the correlation has been brought up many times in legacy Network forums. VMware's greatest advantage right now is increasingly it's ability to lower prices if it has to. This strategy however didn't save NetWare either, not that I miss it.
 
The ability to have more virtual processors per VM is interesting, but there needs to be a way to have them represented as cores per processor. I hate being forced to run Enterprise OS and SQL Server in my QA and Dev environment so that I can have at least eight procs.
 
KentState said:
The ability to have more virtual processors per VM is interesting, but there needs to be a way to have them represented as cores per processor. I hate being forced to run Enterprise OS and SQL Server in my QA and Dev environment so that I can have at least eight procs.
Click to expand...

MSDN licenses are different than normal use licenses, if those don't work for you then complain to MS licensing, using a hypervisor to get around licensing restrictions is pretty bad too.
 
yinan said:
Gonna actually be looking into the next version of Hyper-V due to the new retarded licensing scheme from VMware. They are ripping people off now. My servers now cost almost 600% more to license.
Click to expand...

i cant wait to hear about it at work. the hospital i work at just added a lot of beefy servers as vmware hosts in the last month or two. that place is going to freak over the new licensing.
 
Nothinman said:
MSDN licenses are different than normal use licenses, if those don't work for you then complain to MS licensing, using a hypervisor to get around licensing restrictions is pretty bad too.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with licenses. I want a 4 proc, multi-core server on the same version of OS and SQL Server in QA and Dev and in production so that I'm testing apples to apples. In the day and age of 48 core servers, VM environments needs to offer a little more flexibility.
 
KentState said:
Nothing to do with licenses. I want a 4 proc, multi-core server on the same version of OS and SQL Server in QA and Dev and in production so that I'm testing apples to apples. In the day and age of 48 core servers, VM environments needs to offer a little more flexibility.
Click to expand...

But you said that you have to run Windows and SQL Enterprise in order to get that many CPUs. And since those limitations are artificially put there by MS for licensing purposes it sure sounds like a licensing issue to me.
 
Nothinman said:
But you said that you have to run Windows and SQL Enterprise in order to get that many CPUs. And since those limitations are artificially put there by MS for licensing purposes it sure sounds like a licensing issue to me.
Click to expand...

Those licensing restrictions are based on how non-VM equipment has worked. MS doesn't care how many cores I through at Windows or SQL Server Standard, as long as I have 4 or less processors. VM Ware can not represent virtual hardware in the same manor to Windows which causes the issue.
 
KentState said:
Those licensing restrictions are based on how non-VM equipment has worked. MS doesn't care how many cores I through at Windows or SQL Server Standard, as long as I have 4 or less processors. VM Ware can not represent virtual hardware in the same manor to Windows which causes the issue.
Click to expand...

It is weird that VMware won't let you have a configuration like that. I know VMware Workstation 7.x lets you specify exactly how many physical CPUs and cores a VM has up 8. Although I'm not sure if that's a VMware Workstation hard limitation or one of my laptop because it only has 4 HT cores. But the fact remains that your issue is with MS licensing, not with the VM software out there. If MS didn't add any licensing restrictions based upon core vs socket you wouldn't have a problem.
 
Last edited:
Nothinman said:
It is weird that VMware won't let you have a configuration like that. I know VMware Workstation 7.x lets you specify exactly how many physical CPUs and cores a VM has up 8. Although I'm not sure if that's a VMware Workstation hard limitation or one of my laptop because it only has 4 HT cores. But the fact remains that your issue is with MS licensing, not with the VM software out there. If MS didn't add any licensing restrictions based upon core vs socket you wouldn't have a problem.
Click to expand...

I can see it both ways. I feel that VMWare should allow configuration like in Workstation to closer resemble a physical environment.
 
KentState said:
I can see it both ways. I feel that VMWare should allow configuration like in Workstation to closer resemble a physical environment.
Click to expand...

I agree VMware should allow more flexibility, but your problem is still with MS because of their shitty licensing schemes. IMO there shouldn't be any differentiation between sockets and cores, HT is another thing though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top