Microsoft's 90-Day Sleight of Hand
|
News Analysis. Microsoft's revised virtualization licensing gives a little but takes a lot. |
The company announced the new policies this morning, but I waited on blogging until reviewing some of the documentation and getting some important analyst feedback. Usually the more cryptic a Microsoft press release is, the more devil there is in the details, as appears to be the case here.
The basic announcement: Microsoft lifted a 90-day limit on moving applications among servers in a server farm. The new licensing covers 41 server applications, including Dynamics CRM 4.0, Exchange Server 2007 Service Pack 1, SharePoint Server 2007, SQL Server 2008 and System Center. The changes go into effect on Sept. 1.
Conceptually, the no-time-limit policy would be a boon to enterprises managing server farms and using virtualization as tool for server consolidation. But contrary to Microsoft's pro-customer positioning, the first benefit is to the company.
"The old 90-day limit on license transfers was a showstopper for the 'dynamic data center,'" explained Directions on Microsoft lead analyst Paul DeGroot. The dynamic data center concept is simple: Enterprises move around virtual machines as necessary, to balance workloads, to consolidate servers or even to recover from server or software failures.
The time limitation "wasn't a serious problem for Microsoft, because they didn't have the tools to do this anyway," Paul said. "If they reduced the limit, they'd just be feeding VMware's business." From that perspective, then, Microsoft had competitive reasons for imposing limits.
"Now, they've shipped Hyper-V, and they have Virtual Machine Manager 2008 coming out. Suddenly the 90-day rule is a big problem for them, because they've been showing off how cool it is, and yet it's really impossible to do most of the stuff they demo because of licensing," Paul explained.
The 90-day rule "added up to a world in which to do the dynamic data center you had to buy scads of extra licenses so that every machine was already licensed for any Windows workload it might ever run," Paul continued. "And no one was going to do that. Alternatively, you had to keep a bunch of data offline. Which licenses are assigned to which machine? What workload is running in every virtual machine? When was that VM last moved? By the time you answered all those questions, hours might have passed."
Under the new rule, enterprises could freely transfer application licenses among servers. Some of that newfound freedom does create some strange, ancillary opportunities when factoring in other licensing policies. Microsoft licenses Windows Server Datacenter on a per-processor basis. Conceptually, there is no limit to the number of VMs enterprises could run on the server.
"Buy two [Windows Server] Datacenter licenses for a two-processor machine, and you can go crazy with virtual machines," Paul piped. "Another example is that with enterprise editions of some server-CAL products, you can license any number of instances on the box with a single license." CAL refers to client-access license.
It's unclear whether or not these are intentional licensing loopholes. If intentional, Microsoft might close them in the future as it takes away market share from competitive products.
The 90-day change does have some limitations that are clearly designed to hobble competitors, particularly Linux and VMware's ESX Server. The limitations essentially prevent the moving of virtual machine servers to either Linux or ESX.
"The reason is that it gets its OS license from the OS running on the physical machine," Paul explained. "You can't move that Windows Datacenter license without also moving all of the VMs that it covers, and the server OS can't be moved less than 90 days apart. It isn't included in the waiver of the 90-day rule."
The surprising result: "I'd expect a lot of customers to license every processor in their data center with [Windows] Server Datacenter," Paul predicted. "So, even if you want to use ESX or Linux, you'll still be buying Windows Server OS licenses for those machines. Gives Microsoft a very strong position vis a vis the competition."
Very strong position? Paul gets Microsoft Watch's understatement of the month award. I remember the early 1990s, when Microsoft got into trouble with the U.S. Justice Department for compelling PC OEMs to buy a DOS/Windows license for every computer, even if shipping another operating system. The policy strongly discouraged OEMs from offering and customers from taking competing software because they would pay for two operating system licenses. Please, someone explain how Microsoft's data center/virtual machine licensing policy is different. The logistics aren't the same, but the competitive effect could be similar.
There's great irony here, too. Microsoft counter-marketing emphasizes how Linux isn't really free. I'll say. Microsoft seems to be doing its part to make sure Linux costs something and that the company gets the extra money.
"Microsoft gives up very little," Paul affirmed. "I don't think many customers bought scads of spare licenses just so they could freely move virtual machines around, but it positions itself in a much stronger position vis-a-vis Linux and ESX by making the path of least resistance wholesale licensing of Windows Server Datacenter."
[Please send your tips or rumors to watchtips at live.com]
Comments (9)
I don't understand what the big deal is about virtualization. Are Dimdows apps so ill-behaved that you can't run several of them on one server at a time?
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | August 20, 2008 4:34 AM
Now Joe come on!
Does it surprise you that all of the sudden Microsoft now "has the tools"?"
They didn't have the tools to do this before, so where did they get them?.
They've shipped Hyper-V, and they have Virtual Machine Manager 2008 coming out.
Amazing transformation by Microsoft huh?
OK people i'll lead you to water but whether you drink or not is upto you. Microsoft settled with VCSY on July 25th and now 'WOW' they can actually do some of the stuff the been telling us about for years.
I know it's Microsofts fault to begin with that you guys are as dumb as a bag of rocks, but it's not hard to learn from here if you'll just read the two VCSY patents(744 and 521).
This link will give you some direction:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_V/threadview?m=tm&bn=33693&tid=8748&mid=8777&tof=22&frt=2
Since VCSY forced Microsoft to the settlement table. Microsoft settled with VCSY the day before the Markman Hearing. How many "Penny" companies beat two Nasdaq companies within 15 months of each other? How many companies can say the 'FORCED' Microsoft to settle?
So the details of the settlement are being kept CONFIDENTIAL and all we do know is that it's a non-exclusive "FULLY PAID-UP" licence. As a VCSY Shareholder, that "FULLY PAID-UP" license part gives me goosebumps! Afterall, how often in life do we get the chance to buy a companies stock for pennies with the potential of being hundres of dollars per share?
God has been good to me!
Praise the Lord!!
Posted by I-Man | August 20, 2008 4:45 AM
This difference would be that you have a choice. You could chose not license Datacenter per CPU and just buy a Standard Server license for each VM. However if you intended to run more than 10 VM's on a physical host this may not make since because it will cost you more the a 2 CPU Datacenter license but you do have the choice.
Posted by Dave Barker | August 20, 2008 11:03 AM
Just more smoke and mirrors tactics from Redmond.
Personally, I've had it with cryptic, convoluted, and ever changing licensing rules.
It's always amazed me that there are courses offered on "understanding M$ Licensing".
Geniuses they are though ... write mediocre code then modify license parameters every once in a while to soak every last dime possible out of the customer.
There are more license/lawyer types at M$ than coders. I'm making that up but would not be surprised, if true.
No wonder the M$ slide in popularity (in favor of Apple & open source) continues and I, for one, couldn't be happier.
Actually, I'd be happier if the slide was on a steeper slope !!
Posted by Skyspy247 | August 20, 2008 12:43 PM
On August 20, Lawrence D'Oliveiro mumbled...
"I don't understand what the big deal is about virtualization."
That statement pretty much sums up your ability to authoritatively speak to the issue at hand.
Posted by Jeff Adams | August 21, 2008 1:15 PM
To Jeff Adams:
When you attack the person, while conveniently omitting to address the actual argument, that just makes it clear the type of person you are.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | August 21, 2008 9:19 PM
On August 21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro uttered thusly...
"When you attack the person,..."
Pardon me, please. When I saw your comment, I read it as if you were implying that there was no value in virtualization. If I have misread your meaning, I apologize.
"...while conveniently omitting to address the actual argument,..."
I shall attempt to redress that omission.
The type of virtualization in question has absolutely nothing to do with running several "Dimdows apps," ill-behaved or not, on a server. It's about leveraging the investment in hardware resources, dynamically distributing workloads, easing the burden of disaster recovery, and reducing the carbon footprint of the data center, to name just a few things.
On 11 relatively small servers (hosts) - seven 4-way dual-core servers w/ 32 GB memory and four 2-way dual-core servers w/ 16 GB memory) - I am actively running 204 virtual machines. These VM's are a combination of Windows Server 2008 (64-bit), Windows Server 2003 Standard and Enterprise (32-bit & 64bit), Windows 2000 Server & Advanced Server (32-bit), Windows NT 4.0, Vista (32-bit & 64-bit), Windows XP Professional (32-bit), Suse Linux Enterprise Edition (32-bit & 64-bit), Novell Open Enterprise Server (64-bit), Red Hat Enterprise Linux (32-bit & 64 bit), Novell NetWare 6.0, and Novell NetWare 6.5.
Any of these VM's can run on any of the 11 hosts at any give time, moving from host to host, at will, without shutting down. All of these VM's run in a total of 44U (7x4 + 4x2).
If these were physical servers, they would, at a minimum, take 204U and 408 power supplies. Not only would I be powering all of those power supplies, but I'd also be expending resources cooling my data center. And I would have 204+ network cables taking up 204+ switch ports, instead of the 80 cables/ports I am using for my hosts.
Meanwhile, I would have 204+ (more likely, 408+) processors sitting idle most of the time, wasting CPU cycles, along with the 204 GB+ (likely, much more than that) of memory not being fully utilized.
And when I want to add memory, processors, additional disk, and/or additional NIC's, it's a simple configuration change. Privided I have the back-end resources available, I can shut down a VM, change its memory from 1 GB to 4 GB, give it 1 or 2 additional CPU's, add 3 more NICs, give it 4 more 230 GB hard disks, and power it back on. Total down time? Probably less than 5 minutes.
"...that just makes it clear the type of person you are."
Among other things, introverted and semi anti-social (INTP), yet willing to be of assistance when called to task (and sometimes without being called).
-Jeff
Posted by Jeff Adams | August 22, 2008 12:19 AM
Ping back from Windows Connected - Microsoft Licensing Changes: Greedy and Monopolistic?
Posted by Brad | August 23, 2008 2:57 PM
I've looked through all the documents I can find on MS' virtualization web site and I can't anything that restricts moving licenses to or between non-MS virtualization platforms. It is true that all the example diagrams show the OSE as Windows Server 2008 (and its various versions) but that doesn't automatically exclude Xen, ESX, etc. If someone has documentation link (I didn't see on in Joe's story above) that would be great.
Posted by Mark Dean | August 25, 2008 11:53 PM