|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> 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.
In other words, a company that wouldn't buy 100 physical servers might
consider running 100 virtual servers - so M$ still get their cheque.
> Plus most large
> companies will probably have site-licences so they don't worry about
> buying individual licences like you or I would.
How exactly does that work? I know how I *thought* it worked, but
apparently I'm wrong; I heard one of our head IT guys complaining that
we actually have more Server 2003 Enterprise installations running than
we're "supposed to".
>> 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.
"Supported" and "working" aren't the same thing. ;-)
It might be that it *works* perfectly well, but the testing department
haven't assured themselves fully about it yet, so they don't want to
spend time supporting it until they have.
(Theoretically *every* application should work... depending on how well
the VM works anyway.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |