How do you all deal with high core counts?
Posted by Same_Percentage_68@reddit | sysadmin | View on Reddit | 6 comments
In the planning phase of replacing a server for a client and many of the refurb Dell offerings are quite compelling given the use case. Obviously I’d love to tell them to pull the trigger on the newest and best but that’s a topic for another conversation.
That said, how do you handle licensing and all of that for a single server in a small business setting when for effectively the same cost you can pick 2x Xeon 8 core processors or 2x Xeon 40 core processors.
Obviously there are platinum/gold/silver/bronze and generational differences, but on the secondary market the cost difference is quite subtle, however the licensing side gets tricky.
Running a single server, two sockets, windows server 19/22 as a host plus a couple VMs, is there an easier/lest licensing prohibitive way to accomplish it? 80 cores sounds great, till you need to buy all the core nonsense.
Thanks!
OpacusVenatori@reddit
You need to evaluate your workload and determine what it is you actually need. For most SMBs, there's still very few workloads out there that will really, really need to have access to more than a 16C/32T configuration.
That's really not a complex scenario; plenty of Windows Server licensing calculators out on the web for that already. Probably similar options for other core-based software.
Same_Percentage_68@reddit (OP)
I agree, I think a 16C/32T setup is likely more than enough, I'm simply trying to understand what most are doing in relation to the many offerings of vastly higher core count CPUs on the market. I'm totally making the rest of this up, but lets say you've got a $3,000 R640 with a 16C/32T dual Xeon vs a $3,100 32C/64T setup, there can be a lot to offer there, but if the licensing cost is wild via Windows, I assume people have found a reasonable workaround.
OpacusVenatori@reddit
It just comes down to discussing the numbers with the client. If you tell them that an an extra $100 doubles the cores, but then doubles the cost of the licensing, that's something they can figure out. Very obvious they will ask you if the additional cores is necessary, or if it's required for their needs, and that's where your "expertise" will come into play.
But with 16-cores of Standard Edition going for $1175, and Datacenter for for 6750, it's peanuts in the grand scheme of things; when the cost of the license considered over the lifespan of the product. If an SMB is going to be balking at an extra $250 / year spend on one license (assume a 5-year license usage)... that business has other problems.
But Microsoft's own internal memos suggest that clients should scale out, rather than scale up. So that additional $100 for the hardware, and the additional 1175 for the licensing, I'd take that an apply it to the cost of a 2nd server, and be able to justify the whole additional cost as part of the client's BCDR solution.
Same_Percentage_68@reddit (OP)
I would agree completely on all points. I was simply wondering if there was a universally accepted way to license a bunch of cores at a relatively inexpensive price.
I sincerely appreciate the input!
OpacusVenatori@reddit
License? No. Activate, yes. There are black market KMS servers floating around on the web that will activate any Windows system for which there's a valid public GVLK string available.
Obviously that's software piracy.
OEM licensing is also always an option. If you time it right and can get the inside scoop, sometimes the OEM discounts even for Microsoft licensing can get really steep. They'll just hammer you on the CALs.
dr_dingle_dangle@reddit
If physical core licensing is mandatory (many times it is not, for instance websphere sub capacity), I would go for low core count, high clock speed and latest gen that's affordable, if you need it to be performant. But of course, you have to weigh this vs the software license costs. Maybe lower cores and old gen is all that's needed for the required workload?