Hi,

You fail to mention that it does not matter the type of virtualization host used. How about buy a big host install VMware ESX on the host and then have a bunch of SQL2005 guests on that host. ESX performances so much better then MS VS2005. It is not even comparible.

esxsupporter, right you are! I apologize for completely missing that. You are correct, this licensing on SQL (just like the Windows Datacenter licensing) is virtualization platform agnostic. It doesn't matter if you are using VMware, Microsoft, whatever... you just need to purchase the proper licensing.

Great catch! Thanks for reminding me.

Microsoft is finally getting something right. I'm really excited to see the changes in licensing due to Virtualization in the Data Center arena. The idea of Microsoft helping support flat rate Servers will make it much easier for SMB or Medium Sized Data centers to expand. They can calculate the exact cost of a physical box, and then just install VM's as needed. I'm unclear that if you purchase a Data Center edition, which allows unlimited VM's if you choose to use a non Microsoft Virtualization Software, such as VMware or Xen, if the licensing is the same.

Bradford,

Yes, you got it. It doesn't matter which virtualization platform you install. If you install VMware, as long as you purchase a copy of the Windows Datacenter Edition, you should be fine with the Microsoft licensing. Pretty good, isn't it?

Get a clue guys. This is purely to screw over VMware by making windows in a VM free for Datacenter users, and by discouraging people from deploying SQL Server in the way users are used to in a virtualized environment.

You can only buy Windows Datacenter edition pre-installed and bundled with certain certified hardware. You then put as many VM's (containing windows) as you want, for free. With VMware ESX Server, Microsoft makes you pay for a separate windows license for each VM you install. For the average 8-way server (with about 30 VMs) -- the price difference can really add up to tens of thousands of dollars.

Also, the SQL Server licensing is designed to encourage people to put all their SQL licenses on a single server -- you only buy a very expensive SQL Server license for a single system, and put as many SQL Server vms there as you want. The more common virtualization deployment strategy is to distribute lots of little SQL Servers across lots of servers for better load balancing. But now you have to pay $$$ for each of those SQL Servers.

It's predatory pricing vs. VMware, but in a clever way that disguises it as a license tweak -- which Microsoft will no doubt explain as "better serving customer needs" or "protecting customer data" or some other self-serving standard MSFT PR crap which even after 15 years of predatory behavior, too many bloggers, writers and editors lap up like cream.

GetAClue- those are some pretty harsh words there. You claim that bloggers, writers and editors lap this stuff up like cream, but I'm still confused about your message.

I understand you want everyone to get a clue but things would make more sense if you tried to educate us on the facts rather than throwing out wild accusations.

Didn't Microsoft change their datacenter purchasing method last year in October? Didn't they move from an OEM only method to also include a direct and reseller sales method where they would charge on a per processor basis?

And at the same time, didn't they also claim that you could purchase said datacenter OS and still get the same unlimited windows guestOS licensing if you were running Vmware, Xen or Virtuozzo or did I miss something.

And maybe I missed the point of the article which is where I guess my lack of a clue comes in. If I don't want to purchase SQL enterprise and run multiple instances of SQL on a single box, can't I just continue to buy SQL standard and do as you suggest though I don't know why I would.

You lost me. I'm not as fast on the uptake as you so please assist.

GetAClue needs to get a clue. The inaccuracies undermine credibility.

Windows Server Datacenter Edition can be run on any server that runs Windows, can be bought through Volume Licensing and applies equally to all virtualization technologies. How is that preditory pricing??? It is complete choice, flexibility and savings.

By Microsoft adding unlimited virtualization rights to SQL EE and Windows Server Datacenter Edition, they made it easier for ESX users and all other virtualization users to dynamically deploy Windows and SQL without worrying about licensing.

Microsoft did not take away or restrict Windows Server Standard/Enterprise and SQL Standard from being virtualized.

How is "making Windows available in a VM free for Datacenter users" "screwing over VMware" when it is ESX users who will take advantage of this the most? Customers do have to deploy Datacenter, only license it. Therefore, they can run ESX with an unlimited number of Windows Server and SQL VMs by licensing Windows Server Datacenter and SQL EE.

M$ is doing some very sneaky things these days.

One of those targeted at Vmware, is the notion that a software license is tied to the hardware it is installed on.

In the case of VM's, M$ is trying to license how a VM is moved by restricting the movement to different HW to only once every 90 days.

Screws with Vmware Vmotion and ESX product usuability when useing it on Windoze!

Officially, Microsoft will not support their applications running on VMWare virtual hardware if you don't have a Premier Support agreement. If you have a problem with Exchange, SQL Server, etc, you must reproduce it on physical hardware or they won't help you.

See http://www.vmware.com/solutions/whitepapers/msoft_licensing_wp.html for VMWare's (biased) account.

I have an Exchange server running on VMWare ESX 3 and the Exchange Best Practices Analyzer reports:

Critical Issues:
VMware detected Server: (server name)
Exchange server (server name) appears to be running as a virtual machine. Please review the support policy detailed in Microsoft Knowledge Base article 897615.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897615

Thanks Microsoft. The sad thing is VMWare's ESX will tend to generate *more* Windows license purchases (and server-application purchases) in Windows shops. With higher server consolidation rates than MS Virtual Server, VMWare lowers the TCO of a Windows server, making individual server purchases more attractive.

Evdcs, I have worked at MS three times, once in enterprise support, and the policy to not support VMWare A) Isn't nearly as strict as it sounds and B) Is ABSOLUTELY necessary.
On the first point, I never once turned down or was asked to turn down support for a product due to it running in a VM, Premier or non-Premier (Pro). The only time that would even come into play is if it appeared to be solely caused by virtualization, and in that case, yes, we would have asked to reproduce the issue on hardware.
On the second point, it is a necessary evil. MS doesn't have ESX server running at each engineer's desk to test this on, and even if they did, would not support an issue caused by another vendor's product (and should not have to). So a general rule of thumb is, if the problem reproduces on hardware, then it MAY be the OS, if it doesn't, it almost certainly isn't.