>> 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