Windows Server virtual licensing

[Vertigo]

Trying to wrap my head around licensing of virtual servers and have a question to which I can't see a definitive answer.

With the Enterprise version of Windows Server, it states that I am allowed to run up to four virtual servers at any one time. This means I could actually have, say, ten virtual servers hosted on a box but, provided only four were ever running at once, I'd be fine.

My question is whether this rule also pertains to the Standard version. If I were to purchase, say, two Standard licences, could I actually have more than two virtual servers using these licences, provided only a maximum of two were ever running at the same time?

 

[Vertigo]

Thanks for the replies so far but I still can't see anything definitive on this subject.

In a nutshell, the question is whether you need enough licences to cover all your VMs or only the maximum you'd ever run concurrently.

 

[Vertigo]

I'll ask our MS partner for you tomorrow and see if i can get an answer for you

That'd be very much appreciated

The licensing FAQs for Enterprise do seem to say this, as they refer to being able to run up to four VMs "at any one time". I just don't know whether this applies to Standard licences too so, if I were only ever going to run two VMs concurrently, despite actually having more configured, I could just buy two Standard licences.

not sure what good 6 powered off servers are anyway

The specific scenario is that we have multiple servers which each replicate a different customer's system. These are used for development, testing and so on. Generally we're only ever working on one or two customer systems at any given time and so only need a couple of them active. We may have a lot of customers and thus want to configure a VM for each one but, as we only ever want to run one or two at a time, it'd be fantastic if we only needed to buy a couple of licences

 

[Vertigo]

My previous comment applies here then, no this doesn't apply to Standard licenses, so you'd have to adhere to the 90 day transfer

Hmm, that's a bummer if so. I noticed that you said:

There is no virtualisation right with the Windows Standard license, it's a license for 1 virtual or 1 physical server, only

Well, from what I've read, with Standard you are allowed to deploy one virtual and one physical machine using the same licence, provided the physical is merely used as a host for the virtual and provides nothing other than virtualisation services for that VM.

This appears to be exactly the same situation as with Enterprise, except Enterprise allows you to run four VMs or three VMs and one physical with the same restrictions as above.

It's all so damned confusing.

 

[Vertigo]

Per socket.

Now I'm really confused. I'd read that Datacenter can only be licensed on machines with multiple physical processors. If it's then licenced per socket, that would mean you'd have to buy at least two copies of it?

 

[Vertigo]

Ok well Datacenter is too expensive and is overkill for this job as we'd only ever need to run a couple of VMs at any given time.

Enterprise is an option but it'd still work out cheaper if we could buy two Standard licences.

EDIT: One thing I'm still not clear on is the "at any one time" phrasing in the Enterprise licensing FAQs. This seems to suggest I can use the one product key to install any number of VMs but can only run up to four "at any one time". Is this the case and I can shut down and bring up servers "willy nilly" or is there some limited licence transfer system in effect here?

 

[Vertigo]

Do you have any official blurb on that? That is somewhat interesting.

First question under Virtualisation in the licensing FAQ here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/licensing-faq.aspx#virt

You mean somewhat pointless?

So, you can have an OS who's ONLY function is to allow virtualization of the same class of OS, but with which you can do what you want?

Surely then you are best off just running whatever you want on the bare metal.

Why? Running the server in a VM conveys all manner of advantages such as easier backups, snapshots and easy migration to a new host machine as and when required.

I did think about it, look at how it's worded.

Provided the physical is merely used as a host for the virtual and provides nothing other than virtualisation services for that VM

Not that, and whatever other, VM's you wish to run. That licensing model would mean you need a different hypervisor for each VM.

I think you're reading too much into the wording to be honest. I see no reason why they wouldn't let you run more VMs (with appropriate licences of course) on that server since the base OS installed on the hardware is basically only providing the same hypervisor services as you can get for free by deploying Hyper-V Server.