ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    What Are You Doing Right Now

    Water Closet
    time waster
    285
    88.9k
    41.3m
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • coliverC
      coliver @dafyre
      last edited by

      @dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

      @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

      @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

      Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

      That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one

      All the stuff I've read said licensing is the number of cores was all that mattered.

      We had a thread a few weeks ago about this didn't we? From the licensing terms it read that it was 2x8 core processors. Or 16 cores total per license. So if you have a 16 core processor that would still be covered under one license.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • DustinB3403D
        DustinB3403 @Minion Queen
        last edited by

        @Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

        @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

        @Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

        @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

        @Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

        @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

        I'm considering getting half a cow. . . The price per pound is $3.95 . . . Not sure if I have enough freeze room. . .

        I take delivery on 1/2 a cow this week. Around 65 lbs. But I will can most of it not freeze it.

        You're only getting 65 lbs of meat from half a cow? Wow, tinny cow, even without growth hormones.

        I am really only taking 1/4ish of it. I do have to pay for the full half however.

        Pay for the meat, or processing of it? It sounds like you're getting ripped off if you're paying for half the cow + processing and only getting 1/4 of the cow.

        I agreed to half a cow long ago but decided I didn't want all the meat. They will donate the reset to someone in need. So not getting ripped off.

        Well at least the food is going to a shelter or something.

        I hope they aren't just going to consume it themselves, but actually provide it to a shelter or food bank.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          Good morning everyone!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • pchiodoP
            pchiodo @dafyre
            last edited by

            @dafyre @JaredBusch

            I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.

            JaredBuschJ scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
              last edited by

              @stacksofplates said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

              @Romo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

              Trying to learn about the pros and cons of the various image formats (qcow2, raw, lvm) available for my kvm hypervisor. @stacksofplates any opinion and/or some benchmarks you can share?

              I don't usually use raw images unless I'm just testing something and don't care. Qcow2 is the slowest, but if you preallocate, it gets much faster. You can preallocate the metadata or do a full preallocation. If you do full though, I believe you lose thin provisioning.

              I don't have anything currently on volumes. I did for a while, but I don't have anything right now that needs that speed. I definitely go with volumes over raw files. Volumes give you all of the added benefits of LVM (snapshots, thin provisioning, etc).

              This should probably be it's own post written as an article.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • Minion QueenM
                Minion Queen Banned @pchiodo
                last edited by

                @pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                @Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                @Minion-Queen said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                I'm considering getting half a cow. . . The price per pound is $3.95 . . . Not sure if I have enough freeze room. . .

                I take delivery on 1/2 a cow this week. Around 65 lbs. But I will can most of it not freeze it.

                You're only getting 65 lbs of meat from half a cow? Wow, tinny cow, even without growth hormones.

                I am really only taking 1/4ish of it. I do have to pay for the full half however.

                You are getting ripped off. Hugely! - I grew up with this stuff. Typically, from a full grown animal, you'll get 440 LBS of freezer ready beef. (220 lbs for half, 110 lbs for 1/4) - From this, about half will be ground beef, and the rest in cuts such as roasts, steaks, ribs, brisket, and tenderloin.

                Here's about how much freezer space is required for 1/4 cow:

                http://www.clovermeadowsbeef.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/quarter-cow.jpg

                Processing charges vary, but generally about $0.50/pound hanging weight, or about $475 total for the average cow (700lbs hanging weight + kill charge)

                If you're only getting approximately 65lbs and still have to pay the processing for 1/2 cow, you're likely paying more than store prices for the same beef.

                Just sayin'

                Yeah I know I am paying more, but I also KNOW what they have been feeding the cow (these are friends) and know how they treat them. Because of my food allergies knowing that the cow hasn't been fed certain things or been given antibiotics is a big deal.

                pchiodoP 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • JaredBuschJ
                  JaredBusch @DustinB3403
                  last edited by

                  @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                  @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                  Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                  I've already seen a shift of local businesses that I know of who heard of this change a while back, and have started to move away from Microsoft products.

                  The Microsoft tax is a literal nothing in overall terms, but the CALs + the tax are what bothers most people.

                  And the whole thing about "you might pay more to license the new OS if you utilize high-density, multi-core processors. "

                  Well who is honestly purchasing servers today with 8 or less physical cores? My lab has more cores than that, and the server is from 2009!

                  Every server I have purchased since 2010 are dual processor eight core xeons. So 8 hyperthread cores also

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @coliver
                    last edited by

                    @coliver said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                    @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                    Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                    They won't. Hardware vendors are going to build servers to accommodate this licensing so very few people will actually realize it.

                    That and, you know, people just don't care.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • pchiodoP
                      pchiodo @Minion Queen
                      last edited by

                      @Minion-Queen

                      Gotcha - No worries. Enjoy your steaks 🙂

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                        last edited by

                        @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                        @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                        @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                        Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                        I've already seen a shift of local businesses that I know of who heard of this change a while back, and have started to move away from Microsoft products.

                        The Microsoft tax is a literal nothing in overall terms, but the CALs + the tax are what bothers most people.

                        And the whole thing about "you might pay more to license the new OS if you utilize high-density, multi-core processors. "

                        Well who is honestly purchasing servers today with 8 or less physical cores? My lab has more cores than that, and the server is from 2009!

                        Every server I have purchased since 2010 are dual processor eight core xeons. So 8 hyperthread cores also

                        I won't say every, but most, for sure. I'm not seeing many with more than eight cores per proc in the SMB. Who needs more than that on an Intel chip. Now if buying AMD, sure.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • DustinB3403D
                          DustinB3403 @JaredBusch
                          last edited by

                          @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                          @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                          @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                          @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                          Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                          That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one

                          Correct, you don't have to license two processors, but they only sell a 2 processor license.

                          So if you have a server with a single processor and want 2016, you are still paying for that second CPU.

                          No they sell 2-core packs

                          At a minimum of 8 cores for each physical processor. So you'd have to purchase 4 packs.

                          (You are correct though, sold in 2 core packs)

                          • A minimum of 16 core licenses is required for each server.
                          • A minimum of 8 core licenses is required for each physical processor.

                          PDF licensing

                          JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • JaredBuschJ
                            JaredBusch @pchiodo
                            last edited by

                            @pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                            @dafyre @JaredBusch

                            I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.

                            8 core min per processor. 16 core min per physical server.

                            DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • JaredBuschJ
                              JaredBusch @DustinB3403
                              last edited by

                              @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                              @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                              @DustinB3403 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                              @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                              @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                              Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                              That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one

                              Correct, you don't have to license two processors, but they only sell a 2 processor license.

                              So if you have a server with a single processor and want 2016, you are still paying for that second CPU.

                              No they sell 2-core packs

                              At a minimum of 8 cores for each physical processor. So you'd have to purchase 4 packs.

                              (You are correct though, sold in 2 core packs)

                              • A minimum of 16 core licenses is required for each server.
                              • A minimum of 8 core licenses is required for each physical processor.

                              PDF licensing

                              I know I am correct, we already talked about this a week ago in another thread.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • DustinB3403D
                                DustinB3403 @JaredBusch
                                last edited by

                                @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                @pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                @dafyre @JaredBusch

                                I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.

                                8 core min per processor. 16 core min per physical server.

                                Which means you could purchase a server with a single processor and only 8 cores (you'd be insane too) and have to purchase licensing for the 8/16 minimums.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • scottalanmillerS
                                  scottalanmiller @pchiodo
                                  last edited by

                                  @pchiodo said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                  @dafyre @JaredBusch

                                  I would argue that deploying a single processor server in a production environment is not a best practice. And it appears MS is thinking the same way. With Server 2012, licensing was per processor, but with 2016 it is per core with an 8 core minimum.

                                  Why not? The procs aren't redundant until you get into enterprise RAS features in the $50K or higher server range. So you actually take on more risk, rather than less, with two procs because there is more to fail. And dual procs are less efficient than one (about 1% less.) So unless you are using the cores, it's not to your benefit. It raises the cost of hardware and raises software overhead and increases risk.

                                  That's why vendors like IBM, Oracle, Fujitsu and Scale all target single proc space heavily - the dual proc thing is partially a vestige of the "low CPU power" era combined with legacy Microsoft licensing that arose from that era. If you are on UNIX, whether entry level servers or massive RISC systems, single proc boxes are the go to systems until you need more power than a single proc can provide and in the RISC space that's way, way bigger than two Intel procs in the SMB space.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • Minion QueenM
                                    Minion Queen Banned
                                    last edited by

                                    http://deadspin.com/bill-belichick-is-sick-of-those-stupid-microsoft-tablet-1787931452?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow HA HA HA HA HA HA

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                    • scottalanmillerS
                                      scottalanmiller @dafyre
                                      last edited by

                                      @dafyre said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                      @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                      @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                      Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                                      That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one

                                      All the stuff I've read said licensing is the number of cores was all that mattered.

                                      I think that this is true. This will actually push the sixteen core single proc systems I would guess.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • scottalanmillerS
                                        scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                                        last edited by

                                        @JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                        @travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                        Reading this thread. Hoping people actually do switch to Linux over this. What actually happens remains to be seen.

                                        That thread said there was a two processor minimum. But when I was reading the licensing do use an example of a 2 x 8 processor system but no where did I see it specifically say you had to license to processors if you only have one

                                        Yeah, they've been very unclear on that. If so, it will put AMD back on the map, but only for the single proc, 16 core use case.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • scottalanmillerS
                                          scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.

                                          coliverC 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • coliverC
                                            coliver @scottalanmiller
                                            last edited by

                                            @scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

                                            I wonder if AMD will decide to exist the space, focus on UNIX or whip out some crazy hyperthreading technology that will make Intel sorry that they went down this path. Those are the three options that I see here. If AMD worked with Oracle, they could make a proc that did some pretty amazing threading. Intel is actually second to last (AMD being last) in hyperthreading performance. It's IBM and Oracle that know hyperthreading.

                                            Would AMD do that? They weren't too far away from being on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago. I'd be surprised if Oracle or IBM would be interested in a partnership at this point.

                                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 1491
                                            • 1492
                                            • 1493
                                            • 1494
                                            • 1495
                                            • 4443
                                            • 4444
                                            • 1493 / 4444
                                            • First post
                                              Last post