Windows Server virtual licensing

Vertigo · 18 Feb 2010 at 09:33

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?

zetec452 · 18 Feb 2010 at 13:30

I asked MS live chat last night and they have referred me to a partner. I also would like a definitive answer as I'm currently looking at W2008 Enterprise.

kefkef · 18 Feb 2010 at 16:17

I've asked our partner today. Took a bit of explaining though!

zetec452 · 18 Feb 2010 at 16:20

I bet you probably wont get a straight answer.

I asked if I would be breaking the terms of the EULA if I had two Server 2008 Enterprise servers with 4 VMs on each and had a failure on the one server resulting in the other server migrating the VMs to the working server. Thus running 8 VMs temporaily on one server.

I didnt get a straight answer.

York · 18 Feb 2010 at 16:25

JonRohan said:
I bet you probably wont get a straight answer.

I asked if I would be breaking the terms of the EULA if I had two Server 2008 Enterprise servers with 4 VMs on each and had a failure on the one server resulting in the other server migrating the VMs to the working server. Thus running 8 VMs temporaily on one server.

I didnt get a straight answer.

My understanding is that in this situation both servers would need 2 x Server 2008 Enterprise licenses (4 in total!), as you can't migrate a license within 180 days of it being used. Or something like that anyway - MS licensing is just too complex

zetec452 · 18 Feb 2010 at 16:26

Eww that is nasty.

Not being able to migrate a license within 180 days of it being used is pretty horrible. I wonder how they can inforce that?

Sin_Chase · 18 Feb 2010 at 17:42

Vertigo1 said:
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.

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

paradigm · 18 Feb 2010 at 17:45

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

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.

Sin_Chase · 18 Feb 2010 at 17:49

Think about it.

I can run a Host Window OS for virtualisation, get a "free" license for a guest then only need extra licenses for extra guests.

Instead of licenses for every guest AND one for the host.

There are times when having a Windows Host OS is handy. Specifically - when a client wants to use existing hardware, mainly SCSI tape backup and, for example, not have to push backups off to more hardware. For a fresh build it might not make sense but for implementing on existing infrastructure it has it's uses.

paradigm · 18 Feb 2010 at 17:56

Sin_Chase said:
Think about it.

I can run a Host Window OS for virtualisation, get a "free" license for a guest then only need extra licenses for extra guests.

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.

Sin_Chase · 18 Feb 2010 at 18:28

Which is why I asked for official blurb, to read the letter of the "MS law" for myself and work out whether it would be useful or not.

Vertigo · 18 Feb 2010 at 20:30

Sin_Chase said:
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

paradigm said:
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.

paradigm said:
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

Click to expand...

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.

kefkef · 19 Feb 2010 at 16:54

Crikey, it's complicated.

Just got off the phone with MS and Partner, If you wanted to run 2 physical machines with 4 virtual instances on each then you need 2 licences, 1 for each box. If you then have a problem with the box you can move the virtual instances to the remaining box to run them but you cannot then move them back to the original box within 90 days or you run foul of the EULA. Trust me, i was scratching my head, the partner was scartching their head and you could even hear the MS guy scratching his head as to why this was the case!!!!

(edit: Should say i am talking about Enterprise not any other version)

Sin_Chase · 19 Feb 2010 at 20:07

If anyone takes notice of such a limitation they need their head checked.

EULA? Pff, sod off.

zetec452 · 19 Feb 2010 at 20:26

Sin_Chase said:
If anyone takes notice of such a limitation they need their head checked.

EULA? Pff, sod off.

My thoughts exactly. I can't justify purchasing W2008 datacentre because if I need to swap a VM within 90 days.

I just hope that the OS can't log this and thus enforce the restrictions.

Lanz · 19 Feb 2010 at 21:22

We are on a campus agreement, and as far as I know, we are licensed for a certain amount of servers be them Virtual of Physical. All servers activate through KMS and once we hit our licensed limit, we can just ring up our supplier and they'll give us a few more that really cost peanuts.

kefkef · 19 Feb 2010 at 22:59

The difference between Enterprise and Datacentre for me is about £20, so it's a no brainer for me really!

Yay for enterprise agreements (plus i just found out i get 8 'free' Forefront TMG licences, so thats the ISA server upgrades covered!

With the gist of the conversation, it was fairly obvious that the MS guys were a bit embarrassed by what appears to be a flaw in their licencing model, yes, it's very definitive, but it doesnt allow for customer loyalty or service. They pretty much said that if they ever came across it then they wouldnt do anything about it.