On The Insider: Judge Bans Real Housewives Sex Tape
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Martin LaMonica
Posted on ZDNet News: Oct 10, 2005 1:00:00 PM

Microsoft is taking a stand on an emerging technology that threatens to reshape software pricing models.

The company on Monday is expected to detail changes to its server product licensing to better accommodate virtualization software, an emerging technology that big companies are eyeing as a way to consolidate servers and cut costs.

Advocates argue that virtualization lets companies reduce the number of servers they need by letting jobs run more efficiency on a smaller number of machines. Virtualization software such as Microsoft's Virtual Server, EMC's VMware and XenSource's Xen lets a server simultaneously run multiple operating systems, or multiple instances of the same operating system. Each instance essentially behaves as a self-contained computer.

News.context

What's new:
Microsoft will change its licensing practices to address emerging technology called virtualization. Rather than charge per physical processor, server products will be priced based on the number of instances that are running.

Bottom line:
Microsoft executives said the new pricing scheme is meant to encourage use of virtualization, where a single server runs multiple operating systems. Analysts said other software vendors will likely alter their policies for virtualization as well.

More stories on virtualization

However, much like multicore processor-based server technology, virtualization software throws the widely used per-processor licensing model out of whack. Currently, most server software is licensed based on a per-processor basis. Virtualization skews that formula, since many "virtualized" instances of an operating system, each running applications like a database or e-mail server, can exist on any given physical server. That scenario can lead to sticker shock for customers, and an unmanageable mess for software makers.

Microsoft's new policy seeks to reconcile new technology and old licensing models. Starting in December, the company will calculate the cost of server software products by the number of running instances of that product on any given server, rather than the number of physical processors contained in that server.

The shift will benefit customers, Microsoft says, by allowing them to parse up the processing power of a machine in a cost-effective manner. The company is looking to expand the use of virtualization with its own products, within partner programs and through its pricing policies, said Andy Lees, Microsoft's corporate vice president of servers and tools marketing.

"Things like pricing and licensing get in the way of the adoption of technology," Lees said. "And customers want to know they're not heading down a cul de sac."

Virtual processor licensing

Before: the price of SQL Server is the license fee multiplied by the number of processors in a server. For example, $2500 x 4 processors, or $10,000.

After: Using virtualization software, customers can choose dedicate two "virtual processors" to SQL Server, rather than the four physical processors, to cut the price in half.

Source: Microsoft

Analysts were quick to note that the new policy also helps Microsoft stay one step ahead of competitors by staking out a policy that others will eventually be forced to respond to.

Any significant changes to license policies from virtualization and other emerging technologies pose potential risks for software vendors, said Gartner analyst Tom Bittman.

"Software vendors are scared--the whole paradigm is forcing them to change how they price and they don't want to reduce revenue in the whole picture," he said.

With the current policy, a company that runs a virtualized server application would have to pay for a full four-processor license even though only some fraction of the server is dedicated to running that application. Under the new policy, a company could choose to dedicate only two virtual machines to a server application on a four-processor machine, and pay accordingly.

The new policy is meant to set an example of how software vendors should cope with virtualization as it becomes more widespread, Lees said.

"The licensing scheme enables customers to utilize virtualization technology. Today that is not the case," Lees said.

More broadly, Microsoft's decision will likely cause other software makers to reassess their policies, said Gartner analyst Alvin Park.

"It will force other vendor to rethink their licensing strategies and over time will cause them to make changes to stay competitive with Microsoft," Park said.

Some of those companies, such as Oracle, SAP and BEA Systems weren't immediately available to comment on Microsoft's policy. A few of Microsoft's competitors in the operating system market, contacted on Friday, said they have made already made accommodations for virtualization.

Novell's policy allows customers to run "virtual images" for SuSE Linux Enterprise Server at no additional charge.

Scott Crenshaw, who leads product strategy for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, said the company offers a program designed to "significantly reduce the costs of deploying (Red Hat) Enterprise Linux in virtual environments." Crenshaw didn't offer additional details.

Doing the math
Under the new policy, Microsoft said Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition, due by the end of the year, will include four virtual machine licenses for free. And in the Longhorn edition of Windows Server, which is due in 2007, Microsoft will allow customers to run an unlimited number of virtual machines for the price of the high-end Data Center edition.

Also, the policy changes will allow customers to reassign licenses from one machine to another, which is an important step to allow customers to provision software and hardware in a more fluid manner to meet changing workloads, Lees said.

Regardless of whether Microsoft's plan becomes the industry norm, it's clear that a change in licensing policies is needed. A recent Gartner survey found that 90 percent of its customers already use virtualization in some form and intend to do more. But the technique, meant to save customers on hardware costs, can inflate software license fees.

For example, a company may want to run an e-mail server and database application on a four-processor server. Currently, the software licensing cost for that arrangement would be the fee for the operating system plus two four-processor licenses for each application. If the company adds virtualization, the cost of that installation goes up. In addition to the application licenses, each virtual machine requires a different operating system license.

With the forthcoming policy, a customer could potentially lower cost by dedicating a virtual machine running on two processors to the e-mail server. Right now, a customer needs to pay for a four-processor license even if only two virtual processors are being used, Microsoft executives explained.

Initially, the new licensing plan will operate on the honor system. Microsoft will have no technical mechanism to track virtual machines and instead will rely on a customer's word, executives said.

Microsoft's virtualization strategy does not pose a significant financial risk to the company because it has set its policy before wide-scale adoption of the technology, said Gartner's Park.

New technologies that strive to make computing gear more efficiently have been creating havoc with software licenses. During the past year, infrastructure software providers have come to grips with licensing changes to accommodate multicore chips, which pack two or more processors on a single piece of silicon to raise performance without generating too much heat.

In October 2004, Microsoft set a policy of counting a multicore processor as one processor for licensing purposes, a move endorsed by chip makers but not by all software vendors.

Within several months, however, Microsoft's largest competitors in server software, including IBM, Oracle and BEA Systems, altered their policies as well.

Whether Microsoft's new virtualization policy will drive the industry is unclear. Lees said that Microsoft's policy is meant to address how customers are using virtualization today--mainly for consolidating several computing jobs on a single machine--as well as future scenarios. By allowing customers to move instances of Windows among different machines without having to purchase a new license for each instance, customers will be able to automatically provision servers over a network to meet changes in computing demand, Lees said.

In addition, over the next two years Microsoft will update its management tools to keep track of each virtual operating system on a machine. Having separate tools to monitor physical servers as well as virtual machines will raise the complexity and cost of running corporate data centers, he said.

Currently, Microsoft's main virtualization product is Windows Virtual Server. Use of the virtualization technique on Windows stands to be more widely used when it introduces a Windows "hypervisor" technology, a different technique that relies on a stripped version of Windows to host other virtual machines.

That hypervisor product will come out in the "wave" with Longhorn Windows Server, company executives said. Gartner's Bittman expects the hypervisor to be completed in 2008 or 2009. He noted that Microsoft is trying to catch up to market leader VMWare.

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 217 Talkback(s)
Licensing woes are almost as old as computing
Back in the mainframe days, everything was licensed. Not in today's sense, but in the sense that you paid a certain amount for a certain term, and got maintenance during that term. Then either you k... (Read the rest)
Posted by: wresnick Posted on: 11/01/05 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
It is their right  FirstNLastN | 10/10/05
Just one more reason to use Open Source. You don't have these problems.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Open Source = No Support  Bud Man | 10/10/05
And your point is ...  Taz_z | 10/10/05
Re: Open Source = No Support  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
Free support?  java.user | 10/10/05
Re: Free support?  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
Sometimes it pays to get attention  DevinAt3Sharp | 10/10/05
Actually there is excellant free support out there for LINUX  maldain | 10/10/05
So what's your point?  voska | 10/11/05
Should be obvious  java.user | 10/11/05
Phone support for free software is a joke  balsover | 10/10/05
Oh, you never heard of this company called Red Hat??  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
MCSEs are incompetent to support open source  matrixdomain | 10/10/05
Open source is best  Edward@... | 10/11/05
You don't?  DevinAt3Sharp | 10/10/05
MCSEs are incompetent to support open source  matrixdomain | 10/10/05
That's kind of narrow thinking  java.user | 10/10/05
MCSE is nothing more than a marketing scheme  matrixdomain | 10/10/05
Great Point. UWI vs CAST (UTech)  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Still unclear  java.user | 10/11/05
Re: still unclear  matrixdomain | 10/11/05
True  Edward@... | 10/11/05
Faulty generalization  HiRezL | 10/11/05
Looks like some are making the switch  platinumrat | 10/10/05
Thanks for the link...  Colonel_Panic | 10/10/05
LINUX! LINUX! LINUX! LINUX!  craig@... | 10/10/05
Oracle already does this  al_broccoli | 10/10/05
But....  Yensi717 | 10/10/05
I've been running Windows for 13+  bjbrock | 10/10/05
Expect to see some firings...  MmmBuddy | 10/10/05
And the closed source shops spend 90% of their time on paper work.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Fact check?  java.user | 10/10/05
Fact: You can develop and deploy without purchasing a license  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Fact: You can do the same with closed source  java.user | 10/10/05
If you work for a software dev company...  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
A few corrections  java.user | 10/11/05
Listen to yourself.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Sigh, more corrections  java.user | 10/11/05
Ooops  java.user | 10/11/05
Java User, rejoice! This is my last post to you.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Yet more corrections  java.user | 10/11/05
Oops  java.user | 10/11/05
Licensing  Safemode196 | 10/13/05
re: Licensing  java.user | 10/13/05
Fact: You can develop and deploy without purchasing a license  dogman01@... | 10/11/05
TCO  Yensi717 | 10/10/05
Yes, there are a lot of TCO studies showing closed source is cheaper.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Seriously flawed logic  Yensi717 | 10/10/05
You're Right!  Chad_z | 10/11/05
Where do you guys work?  java.user | 10/11/05
and they require tonnes of paperwork because...?  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Such hostility  java.user | 10/11/05
Yes, I have read the GPL & LGPL!  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
You should pay me for teaching you... happy  java.user | 10/11/05
I lied! That wasn't my last post.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Than enlighten me  IT Scion | 10/10/05
Hmmm  FirstNLastN | 10/10/05
Sounds like what I thought when I read it...  ajole | 10/10/05
Actually, it costs the same  java.user | 10/10/05
Why divide and not subtract?  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
LOL  java.user | 10/11/05
Thanks for correcting my maths.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
No prob, I can be your English tutor too  java.user | 10/11/05
I Lied, again! Actuall you don't pay for 16.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
more corrections  java.user | 10/11/05
And . . .  HiRezL | 10/11/05
You ought to be kidding me  toomuchgreeatea@... | 10/10/05
RE: Than enlighten me  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
Not true  java.user | 10/10/05
Re: Not true  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
Sure  java.user | 10/10/05
Er,... TODAY? Does that mean december?  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Hahahaa  java.user | 10/11/05
RE:Hahaha  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Oh man  java.user | 10/11/05
Never again.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
yet more corrections  java.user | 10/11/05
BTW, not you specifically  java.user | 10/10/05
Good for you  sykandtyed | 10/10/05
SUSE 10  Tim Patterson | 10/10/05
Read as...  BitTwiddler | 10/10/05
one possibility  java.user | 10/10/05
Good and Bad  nucrash | 10/10/05
Yes, the pitfalls of proprietary software. With Open Source, you don't have  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Only criminal I see here is...  John Zern | 10/10/05
Seems to me, the ignorant ones make posts without an argument.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Open Source isn't the endall though.  nucrash | 10/10/05
Sorry, your dead wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/05
I explained this already  Sabz5150 | 10/10/05
This is exactly why smart companies are moving to open source.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Donnie, what ever gave you this FALSE concept.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/05
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  Sabz5150 | 10/10/05
MCSEs don't know that  matrixdomain | 10/10/05
MCSEs don't know that  matrixdomain | 10/10/05
And you define "professional" as  Richard Flude | 10/10/05
aack, more inaccurate information  CobraA1 | 10/10/05
"emerging" into their revenue stream....  nottheusual1 | 10/10/05
It's "emerging" as a way for MS ...  Judas I. | 10/10/05
Exactly  WhoDaMan | 10/10/05
Re: aack, more inaccurate information  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
inaccurate information about inaccurate information  bknittel | 10/10/05
Good Point - We've been running production VM servers for 25 years...  Plain Logic | 10/10/05
VMs have been around longer than 386  cmello | 10/10/05
even older than the 386  european | 10/11/05
Did You Linux Zealots Even Read the 2nd Page  jjworleyeoe | 10/10/05
Thank goodness for competition  Michael Kelly | 10/10/05
And when  IT Scion | 10/10/05
Absolutely  Michael Kelly | 10/10/05
following a very popular business model  jeasterl | 10/10/05
They drove prices down?  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Historically  java.user | 10/11/05
So Igot all that and more...  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Hmmm, and you still missed the point....  java.user | 10/11/05
Re: And when  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
Amazing...  robradina@... | 10/10/05
MS's price was never an issue with me initially  Michael Kelly | 10/10/05
You will still have licensing problems. Imagine you want to  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Wouldn't that be the same  IT Scion | 10/10/05
With open source components, you do not have any of these problems.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
No, Smart Shops  Confused by religion | 10/10/05
Why would I want to run essentially a big iron app ...  Judas I. | 10/10/05
I'll Reply Just Once to Your Inaccuracy ...  PMC-CON | 10/10/05
Some implementations of Enterprise grade Linux are free (cost)  B.O.F.H. | 10/10/05
Oh, Yeah, TaoLinux is an Enterprise Distro  PMC-CON | 10/10/05
PMC-CON, they are RHEL clones!  B.O.F.H. | 10/10/05
Even now, PMC-CON, you still do not get it  Sabz5150 | 10/11/05
Okay, so where is the per CPu, per Core, per Virtual machine costs?  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Inaccurate  java.user | 10/11/05
Yeah, all my friends have WinXP Home running on their servers!  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Still more corrections  java.user | 10/11/05
Actually, that's not true either  java.user | 10/10/05
in other words....  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Reading comprehension  java.user | 10/11/05
Which means that I stop using it on e one system...  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
You should take your own advice wink  java.user | 10/11/05
hehehe  IT Scion | 10/10/05
The solutions offered by MS do not solve all of your licesing headaches  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Re: The solutions offered by MS do not solve all of your licesing headaches  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
For servers...  Michael Kelly | 10/10/05
For desktops...  java.user | 10/10/05
Windows limited user accounts - limited use  Olorin_z | 10/10/05
Are you sure you set it up correctly?  java.user | 10/10/05
Account setup correctly?  Olorin_z | 10/10/05
Found the answer!  java.user | 10/10/05
Limited user acount answer didn't work sad  Olorin_z | 10/11/05
Why blame MS?  java.user | 10/11/05
Oh, one another thing you could try: runas  java.user | 10/11/05
What does "backward Compatible" mean? (NT)  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Awww, King's servant  java.user | 10/11/05
RE: Why blame Microsoft  Olorin_z | 10/11/05
Awww, Java User...  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
Go for it TKS  java.user | 10/11/05
Really...  ArtMac | 10/10/05
Not to quibble, but...  zztong | 10/10/05
Nothing about time forces M$ to do anything  ajole | 10/10/05
only 4 VMs?  cmello | 10/10/05
Multiple VM's on one cpu is very common  spiv | 10/11/05
Only 4 VMs on a 2 way server?  adeangelis | 10/11/05
wonder how Sun does it  Boot_Agnostic | 10/10/05
Companies can use Open Solaris and forget licensing problems.  DonnieBoy | 10/10/05
Thank you  Boot_Agnostic | 10/10/05
STOP the FUD.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/05
Re: wonder how Sun does it  nightshade0143 | 10/10/05
Well, Sun and its partners care  Boot_Agnostic | 10/10/05
Who cares?  balsover | 10/10/05
Did You Guys Read the 2nd Page?  jjworleyeoe | 10/10/05
No...  ArtMac | 10/10/05
And what of running 64 virtual servers on a two-way system?  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
lol  java.user | 10/11/05
Logic  FirstNLastN | 10/10/05
MS is going to TRUST their customers?!?!  Judas I. | 10/10/05
I wouldn't trust you as far as I could throw a Steinway, OB!  osreinstall | 10/10/05
Shucks, ya really hurt me, osreinstall.  Judas I. | 10/10/05
Nope, can't remember it, do you recall it, osreinstall?  Judas I. | 10/10/05
See if this works  osreinstall | 10/10/05
Last chance OB then it is a mystery  osreinstall | 10/10/05
Aha! Yes! It was that first one!  Judas I. | 10/11/05
It was the square rhside bracket  osreinstall | 10/11/05
Okay, lemme see here ...  Judas I. | 10/11/05
Got it! Cool! Guess what this number is:  Judas I. | 10/11/05
So we have the pleasure...  Anton Philidor | 10/11/05
Well, if you, ...  Judas I. | 10/11/05
This is your number OB!  osreinstall | 10/11/05
What's the big deal?  IT Scion | 10/10/05
Yeah, MS marketing DOES kinda remind you of ...  Judas I. | 10/10/05
I believe that is the Ganja dealer.  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
the grabbing hand, grabs all it can.  crabbywindowsguy | 10/10/05
Not true  java.user | 10/10/05
You must be talking about Red Hat and Novell.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 10/10/05
Ya mean THESE terms, Axey:  Judas I. | 10/10/05
Free copies.  Anton Philidor | 10/11/05
You're right on one point ... sorta.  Judas I. | 10/11/05
Risky  Anton Philidor | 10/11/05
Boy, are you right about a BUNCH of things here.  Judas I. | 10/11/05
Lions Share ...  preacherx | 10/10/05
VMs on Linux  Otto_Delete | 10/10/05
My Rep  jimlascola | 10/10/05
Well then...  ArtMac | 10/10/05
Ok, Question?  raymarc001 | 10/10/05
you don't run VMs on crap hw  cmello | 10/10/05
'Cept that you can run Windows on THE ...  Judas I. | 10/10/05
Anything to make Microsoft seem like the good guy  tomam | 10/10/05
Microsoft and "Virtual" Licensing  LeelandWebster@... | 10/10/05
VIRTUAL Server = REAL Software Costs  jonv | 10/10/05
COUNTERFEITERS  wirelessmyke@... | 10/10/05
Dell notebooks and OpenGL  The King's Servant | 10/11/05
New Virtual Licensing Policy  briancoppola@... | 10/10/05
Microsoft lowering prices?  An_Axe_to_Grind | 10/11/05
This is a report about licensing costs.  Anton Philidor | 10/11/05
Not entirely in best interests of M$ customers  IT Makes Sense | 10/11/05
Good observation!  An_Axe_to_Grind | 10/11/05
Re: still unclear: MCSEs & IT Head Hunters  matrixdomain | 10/11/05
You are blathering again!  osreinstall | 10/11/05
In fact that's increase of cost for MS OS  PhilippeV | 10/16/05
You have not understood the story  PhilippeV | 10/16/05
Licensing woes are almost as old as computing  wresnick | 11/01/05

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Introducing SmartPlanet

  • Find thought-provoking progressive ideas on topics that intersect with technology, business and life. Visit Today
  • Technology, perspective, and insights shaping the world
  • Learn innovative and practical skills for your business and your life. SmartPlanet offers 360 degree coverage that you need to feel connected to the information that matters to the world at large. Go to SmartPlanet
advertisement
Click Here