licensing Archives

August 3, 2020

We Want YOU to Help the RDBMS Licensing Session at VMworld 2020

Hello everyone. Dave Welch from House of Brick (Blog | Twitter) and I will be co-presenting session HCP1634 “Licensing Oracle and SQL Server on vSphere” at VMworld 2020 this September. I will be focusing on SQL Server while Dave will be covering Oracle. Many of you may only use one of the database engines, while a fair number of you may have both in your data centers (or cloud providers). We know it’s going to be a great session but we want your input to make it even better.

Because VMworld 2020 is going to be virtual that means some sessions (including ours) will be pre-recorded. That puts a damper on interaction. We’d like to change that as much as possible and make it feel as if you were there in the proverbial room with us. Specifically, we would like to know some of your pain points around licensing SQL Server and/or Oracle in virtualized environments (on premises and/or cloud) as well as glean information about what you deploy so our session can reflect the audience. Normally we would poll the room at various points during the session, but that won’t be possible. We’re also taking questions that we’ll incorporate into the session as well. We cannot promise we will get to every single one, but historically, the licensing session has left quite a bit of time for Q&A, and we want to be able to still do that. The only way to make that happen is to gather them ahead of time.

How do you participate? It’s easy – take our survey and fill out the relevant bits that apply to you. Any names or e-mail addresses, organization name, and role information provided is completely optional. We will not use them for promotional purposes nor store them permanently. If we use your question, the name will allow us to possibly follow up should we need to do so.

The survey is live now and will close at midnight on August 11th. What are you waiting for? Go fill it out!

We thank you in advance and we will “see” you virtually at VMworld 2020.

November 7, 2019

Two Big SQL Server Availability Announcements from Microsoft

Hello everyone. I have not had much time to blog, but there are a few things that you should be aware of and that I have an opinion about. Both were recently announced – one before Ignite and PASS Summit and the other this week somewhat quietly in a session at Ignite.

Big Deal #1 – Azure Shared Disks for FCIs (and One More Thing …)

If you have ever heard me present, you will know I am not the biggest fan of deploying Always On Failover Cluster Instances (FCIs) in non-physical environments. That includes in any of the public clouds. Why? There are quite a few reasons which I will not go into here, but I will discuss the biggest one: shared storage. Configuring shared storage is awful in any of the public clouds. Sure, if you use something like VMware’s solutions in any of the public clouds you can take advantage of vSAN, but that will not work for most folks. I’ve been VERY vocal how much the Storage Spaces Direct solution is currently a fairly terrible experience at least in Azure. SIOS DataKeeper is a good solution, but for some, they do not want to purchase anything else; they want a workable, native solution. Sure, you can use iSCSI but why would you?

You get the idea. It kinda sucks right now (forget the fact you probably should not be doing it to begin with). I’ve had conversations with both the SQL Server and Windows Server dev teams about this. They know my displeasure.

Maybe they finally heard me. At Ignite during BRK3253 – Windows Server on Azure overview: Lift-and-shift migrations for enterprise workloads (man, I hate how MS does not capitalize titles ….), Elden Christensen and Rob Hindman from the Windows Server dev team (both of whom I know very well) announced the private preview of Azure Shared Disks (it’s apparently being renamed, and isn’t Shared Azure Disks) and show a non-SQL Server-based demo. If you want to skip ahead, they talk about it at 22:34. This will not change my opinion on using FCIs up in Azure, but it will sure as heck make it easier to deploy. As soon as I can test, I’ll report back. There is another session BRK3283 Optimize price-performance and lower TCO for your workloads with the next-gen Azure Disks (not live as of this posting) which will cover more of the Azure disk stuff.

One more recent change which I will be most likely showing and talking about for the first time in a few weeks at my SQL Server LIVE! precon is the ability to use Azure Files for FCIs.

I would recommend you also have a look at the Ignite sessions from John Marlin to see and hear about anything new coming in WSFCs in Windows Server vNext LTSC. The biggest announcement I’m aware of that could affect SQL Server (and specifically FCIs) is the ability to stretch a WSFC with Storage Spaces Direct (S2D). THR2155 I can’t currently watch (network error on the Ignite site), so I haven’t been able to ascertain what else could impact SQL Server. If there’s something else, I’ll either update this post or do a new one if it’s really major.

Big Deal #2 – Changes to Licensing for Availability Scenarios

On October 30th, Microsoft let the cat out of the bag that licensing rules for the availability scenarios were changing as of November 1, 2019 if you have Software Assurance (SA). We always tell our customers that SA is often worth it. You can see the full new rules in the SQL Server 2019 licensing guide. The rules apply to all supported versions of SQL Server.

Let that sink in: supported versions of SQL Server. What does that mean? For example, if you are using SQL Server 2016 with Service Pack 1 whose support ended on July 9, 2019, you would need to go to Service Pack 2 or later. Microsoft is not going to come in and crash your party, but if they audit you or you are going through a true-up for licensing, it could bite you. This means you need to stay current to take advantage of these benefits.

I’m going to discuss what I feel are the biggest game changers. I knew licensing was changing as I had conversations with Microsoft around this months ago. I was not sure what the final result was going to be, but I’m fairly pleased. Is it perfect? No, but it’s much better than it was.

It’s interesting to note that for licensing purposes, Microsoft defines HA as a synchronous replica with automatic failover and D/R as an asynchronous replica with manual failover.

Change #1 – Backups and DBCC on a Secondary Replica Is Now Free

I still hate the use of the words active and passive, but that’s a whole other blog post. In talking with Microsoft, there are other reasons some of these terms are used, but again, irrelevant at the moment. Taking terminology out of the picture, with SA, you can now generate full, copy only backups, transaction log backups, and run DBCC on a secondary replica of an AG without incurring a license. That of course assumes no other databases are live on that instance. That is a huge change because through SQL Server 2017, those were considered “use” and you had to license. This is one thing that should have been there since day one, but I’m just glad they finally corrected their stance.

Change #2 – Allowance for Disaster Recovery Testing

This one is buried in the licensing document, but very big. Here’s what it says:

Customer may also run primary and the corresponding disaster recovery replicas simultaneously for brief periods of disaster recovery testing every 90 days.

I can’t emphasize how huge this is. For example, there was always a question if you were using something like VMware’s Site Recovery Manager (SRM) as your primary D/R method. Now that is covered in pretty clear language. Thank you, Microsoft.

Change #3 – Disaster Recovery Is Now Covered (To a Point …)

Prior to these changes, you only got one “free” replica. If you had an AG with three replicas, two local for HA and one remote for D/R, you paid for two of those. With this licensing change, both the HA and D/R replicas would be covered if you have SA. This is huge.

Change #4 – Azure Disaster Recovery Replicas Are Covered via the Azure Hybrid Benefit

This is related to #3. I’m sure this one will irk some, and if so, please comment below. I know Microsoft is listening 🙂 If Azure is your cloud provider and you want to stick a replica for your AG up in the cloud that is just for disaster recovery, you are now covered with SA. This was not the case before. This new benefit does not apply if you are using Amazon Web Service or Google Cloud.

With this benefit, you can technically have up to three passive replicas (one on premises for HA, one one premises for D/R, and one up in Azure for D/R). Anything else would still seemingly need to be paid for. So if you have two D/R replicas in different data centers (for example, your main data center is in Boston, and you have D/R replicas in London and Chicago), you are going to pay for one of those. That is still better than paying for two.

Things That Could Use Clarification

Due to the “standardization” of terminology, FCIs, AGs, and log shipping are basically treated the same in this document. That’s confusing. Microsoft says this:

Each of these implementations uses different terminology. The examples that follow use ‘Active’ as the read-write database or instance (also referred to as Primary Replica in an Always On Availability Group) and ‘Passive’ for the write only database or instance (marked to not-read, referred to as Secondary Replica in an Always On Availability Group).

But that’s not the terms we use for FCIs in technical documentation. For example, FCIs do not have “write only instances”. You install the binaries on other nodes of a Pacemaker cluster or WSFC and then the FCI can fail over to it. It’s not a “live” instance. I know this is probably not changing because documents like this go through legal reviews and has to match other similar documents/licensing terms for things like Windows, but it irks me to no end.

Also, I am wondering how all of this affects distributed availability groups and how the forwarder is considered. Is it passive or active from a licensing perspective? I’m hoping they clarify that.

December 3, 2015

Windows Server 2016 – Licensing and General Availability

Today, Microsoft published the FAQ (dated December 2015) for Windows Server 2016’s licensing. It is still early days and I have seen no official prices yet, but this document gives you an idea of what is coming. However, as this is still early and it has not RTMed yet, all of this is clearly subject to change so this blog post is based on what is known today. There are some important changes you should be aware of, and this is where my excitement for some of what is in the platform meets the reality of our customers at SQLHA.

Windows Server 2016 Will Have Different Features Per SKU

For the first time since Windows Server 2008 R2, there will be a difference in the feature sets. In Windows Server 2012 and 2012 R2, both Standard and Datacenter had the same stuff; the real difference was virtualization licensing. With Windows Server 2016, there will be a few differences, notably Storage Spaces Direct (S2D – a really cool feature I’ve demoed a few times with SQL Server) and as they put it, “an Azure-inspired networking stack.” This isn’t all doom and gloom; the basics are still in Standard, it just looks like the high end stuff, much like In-Memory (i.e. Hekaton) in SQL Server, is in Datacenter. While to me it is a bit disappointing they are diverging a little, I’m glad they are not seemingly hobbling Standard. The reality is that the use case for things like S2D will not be for everyone, so in a way, it makes sense to push it to Datacenter for now. Those higher end features generally require more expertise and cost to get running, so many smaller shops with limited time, budget, and resources would be hard pressed to take advantage of them out of the gate if I’m being honest.

Say Hello to Core-based Licensing for Windows Server

This is the one that may annoy most folks. Like SQL Server, Windows Server 2016 licensing will be core-based, including the Core Infrastructure Suite SKU. Historically, Windows pricing has been MUCH lower than SQL Server, and no prices have been announced. So before anyone has a conniption, let’s see what the core pricing will be based on the chart shown on page 2, there are cases where the cost may be the same as it is today.

Having said that, there are a few things that you should start thinking about.

Some what is behind this change has to do with hybrid scenarios. The (Public) Cloud is a big part of licensing, so Microsoft had to address it in the in-box scenario at some point. For example, in October of this year, Microsoft allowed those with Software Assurance to start using their own Windows images in Azure and paying the standard compute rates, so this move aligns with that. Whether you agree or like that is a different story, but it makes sense. For more information on Windows Server license mobility with SA for Azure, see the official blog post here, and it will go into effect on Q1 of 2016 (calendar, not fiscal, year).
Core-based licensing is based on physical cores. So if I’m interpreting that correctly, you do not pay extra if hyperthreading is enabled.
The core-based licensing is slated to start coming into effect in Q3 of 2016, and this is the first document that points to the general availability of Windows Server which looks to be in the July – September timeframe. That should surprise no one, given Ignite is at the end of September of 2016.
Core licenses will be sold in two-packs. Every physical processor will need a minimum of eight core licenses, or four packs. The math here is simple: even if you have a six-core box, you’re going to have to pay for eight. What does this mean? Stop buying processors with less than eight cores as you will be wasting money.
Standard Edition allows for two VMs with licensing ; Datacenter, as it has in the past, allows for unlimited VMs assuming all processor cores are licensed.
You still need CALs for users and devices accessing servers.
Nested virtualization (I’ll be posting a blog on this in a few days) is covered with Datacenter.

Musings and a Call to Action

I’m not surprised by this move. Like SQL Server did with SQL Server 2012, they are aligning to how things are really purchased and deployed both on premises and in the cloud. As with SQL Server 2012, we had a great ride for a long time with processor-based licensing. Again, it’s important to keep in mind that historically Windows Server has not been SQL Server, so the costs will most likely be reasonable. But this will change the way we use and configure servers both on premises for physical and virtualization (regardless of whether or not it is part of a private cloud) and up in the public cloud if you’re bringing your own licenses.

Like I said, this is not doom and gloom. Rome is not burning yet and it may not for many customers depending on how things shake out. When we help our customers design, plan, and implement their architectures, a big part of it is maximizing their investments – and licensing is a huge component. So if you’re looking for help with a new project (on premises – physical or virtual, hybrid, or public cloud) where this may come into play at some point, or you’re looking to assess how this may impact your current deployments and want to minimize the impact of this announcement, contact us today. It’s always better to be proactive than reactive.

I’m curious as to your thoughts about this big change in Windows Server 2016. Will this drive you away from deploying Windows-based solutions, and as part of that, SQL Server? Is this a net-net of no change for you? Will it limit how much you deploy? Weigh in below.

July 5, 2012

Sockets, Cores, and Hyper-Threading – Oh My!

I’ve been mulling over writing this post for awhile. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, but I think it needs to be said. This post is purely my opinion and no one put me up to it.

Ever since SQL Server 2012 announced its new licensing model, and specifically, per-core, many have been up in arms. I can see where some can see this as a “betrayal” – I mean, one of the reasons SQL Server is so ubiquitous is that it has historically been affordable for most. Enterprise may be out of reach for some now more than ever, but it’s always been out of reach for some. I would argue if you didn’t use Enterprise before, you probably wouldn’t now. Per core is a big change that will explode some licensing costs even for larger customers that will make them even think twice in some cases. I know this to be true because I’ve had those conversations already with some of them. I hope some of you got Software Assurance to at least take care of some of that for now.

Quite honestly – and this is something I’ve said publicly – I’m surprised Microsoft waited as long as it did with SQL Server to switch models from processor/socket/CPU to physical cores (not hyperthreading). I’m not saying I agree or disagree with it, but it does make sense. Putting on another hat, I’ve been in the position where if you undercut your price too much, people don’t take you seriously or think you’re as good … or if you charge too much, you won’t get the job. Ben and I charge very fair prices out there and probably are lower than many folks or other consulting organizations but more than others. That’s just the way it is. Consulting – at least for me – has not been a get rich quick scheme to fleece customers out of money. If that was the case, I’d be retired already. I’m coming up on year six of being out there and I think the fact we keep getting business says that we’re doing a good job and our prices are in the right ballpark. At the same time, we’ve run into customers (or potential customers) who want the sun, the moon, and the stars for something like $25/hr. My response to that generally is: “If you can find someone like that at that price, lock them up!” To get expertise, you’re going to have to (reasonably) pay for it. But I digress …

Anyway, I think that’s some of the drive behind this. In my experience going back to 4.21a, Microsoft really doesn’t nickel and dime you a lot with SQL Server – most things come with the price. Want availability groups or failover clustering instances? Included in Enterprise’s license. You get the idea – and this is one reason I think SQL Server has gained so much momentum over the years. You don’t have to worry about a lot once you have it in place.

Before you scream “You insensitive @*(&#^@*&^#” remember I’m in the business of helping customers devise solutions that fit all of their needs – including meeting their budgets. I work with customers small and large, and I see the impact licensing has on them. I’ve heard rumblings from many of looking to possibly other platforms down the road for some systems … much like they did to Oracle when they switched to SQL Server many years ago. I would argue this may not be the way to go. Why? Think of the cost of moving the application (new app coding? new software to buy? cost to switch? when will the ROI be made up? skillsets? you get the idea). It’s not going to necessarily be cheap in all cases AND it’s going to take time, especially if you need to rearchitect it for a new platform. So saying “Screw you Microsoft!” may be premature and misguided.

With the announcement of Windows Server 2012’s editions and licensing I talked about in my previous post, we have the bigger picture. Will things cost you more even in the Windows Server 2012 world? You betcha. Again, to a degree this can’t come as a big shock to many. The change to per processor won’t make many happy, but how many people are buying more than two- or four-socket machines these days? Very few. And to be blunt – Windows licensing is not the same as SQL Server licensing. They didn’t implement per core, so while you’ll pay more, in the grand scheme of things, it’s still pretty reasonable.

The real problem: how do you account for processors that have more and more cores – especially with something like SQL Server that can really hammer the crap out of them with the right workload? Something has to give somewhere. If we get to 12, 16, 24 cores … I mean, when does MS get to say “Uncle!” Again, not defending them per se here – but at some point MS has to account for all of that additional computing horsepower somewhere.

Here’s another problem as I see it: we’ve been able to throw hardware at performance problems for years. For example, if you are/were CPU-bound, with the newer multi-core procs, you could probably eliminate your issues with very little fuss. That’s great, but the app still isn’t tuned. Now that, say, SQL Server is charging per core, I would argue we’re going to get back to brass tacks and demand that things be tuned to minimize costs. Many of us should have been doing this all along, but it hasn’t happened. It’s about being smarter, and that includes tuning the applications – be they internal or third party.

There’s never a free lunch, and never has been when it comes to licensing. The new stuff is always (with very, very rare exceptions) more expensive than the old stuff … and it generally always will be. I know the new licensing models will alienate some and create some hard feelings for some companies out there; it’s unavoidable. MS I’m sure will lose some customers or at least some systems at customers over time. What I do hope is that people step back, take emotion out of the discussion, and look at these things for what they are. Many of us are technologists. Microsoft is a company in the business of making money; so is your company, and so are you. Would you do your job for free? Hell no. Even if you are a salaried, full time employee you want to be paid a fair wage. Whether you think Microsoft is right or not, it’s their right to set what they feel is fair market value for their products, just as you do your services to a company (be it as an FTE or consultant).

July 5, 2012

Windows Server 2012 Editions, Licensing, and a Big WSFC Change

Today, Microsoft announced the different editions that will ship for Windows Server 2012 when it is released. Guess we’re getting close to RTM (or so Mary Jo Foley says). There’s a bit of a change in what will be available which you should be aware of. We will have:

Foundation (OEM only, so not really something you can buy per se)
Essentials
Standard
Datacenter

You may notice one major edition has been eliminated: Enterprise. I find this pretty funny and ironic since SQL Server 2012 made the opposite decision – axe Datacenter and just keep Enterprise. Looks like the two marketing organizations didn’t have a pow-wow 🙂 Also of note is that Small Business Server is kaput as well, and apparently, not to return. That won’t make some happy.

Licensing wise, this also changes the landscape a little. Here’s a quick comparison table with 2008 R2:

Edition	Windows Server 2008 R2 ERP (US $)	Windows Server 2012 ERP (US $)
Essentials	N/A	$425 (up to 25 users)
Standard	$1,029 (w/ 5 CALs)	$882 (Processor + CAL)
Enterprise	$3,919 (w/ 25 CALs)	N/A
Datacenter	$2,999 per processor (min. 2; unlimited virtualisation)	$4,809 (Processor + CAL; minimum of 2 processors; unlimited virtualization)

Here is the link to the Windows Server 2008/R2 licensing guide in PDF format and here is the link to its 2012 counterpart if you want to see things in gory detail. The biggest change is that things across the board seem to be going per-processor instead of, say, a single server license fee (no matter how may processors/cores you had).

From my perspective the most important change is this: Windows Server failover clustering (WSFC) is now included in Windows Server 2012 Standard (this is in that 2012 document I link previously). As of writing this blog post, I don’t know if Windows will limit the total number of nodes like SQL Server does with Standard edition and installing FCIs. I will update accordingly when I get a definitive answer. Stay tuned …

UPDATE 2:30PM Some of this change seems to be directly due to feedback from customers. The goal apparently was to simplify things and not make licensing the confusing mess it sometimes has been (my opinion on the confusing mess part, of course). While doing things per proc may anger some, it standardizes things across the board. Whether or not you agree with it is a total different story. With having the same feature sets and yes – including up to the maximum number of nodes in a WSFC allowed with NO restrictions – it really boils down to the best licensing scheme for your needs. The value prop is there regardless of which edition you choose. If you’re going to be doing a lot of virtualization, Datacenter is your ticket to paradise. That’s the biggest difference here. And really, what that translates to is if you’re not using VMs, you can probably go with Standard all the way. $882 per processor for four sockets is $3528, which is still cheaper than Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise.

BIG DISCLAIMER: I don’t play a licensing expert on TV or in real life. It can get complicated – especially if you’re, say, looking at a multi-site, multi-instance availability group scenario with SQL Server 2012. Your best bet to find out how this will impact you is to not only read the PDFs linked above, but talk to those who actually acquire licenses for your deployments.

Popular Posts

Categories