"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:48bbaecf$1@news.povray.org...
>
> That's an... interesting move. Still, I guess if you have 100 virtual 
> servers and they all run Windows, you still need 100 server licenses.

Yup. But you'd also need 100 licences if you had 100 seperate physical 
servers, so it kinda works out cheaper to buy a single large server and 
virtualise several 'servers' onto one where possible. Save on power, 
cooling, space in the server room, probably on hardware. Plus most large 
companies will probably have site-licences so they don't worry about buying 
individual licences like you or I would.

> However, since it appears that you can actually run real software at 
> almost native speeds, suddenly it becomes far more interesting... ;-)
>

Most and almost.
I know that currently SQL Server isn't supported for production usage on any 
form of virtual machine. It may change in the upcoming months with HyperV.

Post a reply to this message