[UnoriginalGuy]

> Microsoft's ridiculous VM licensing scheme for Windows

Microsoft offers at least three different ways to license Windows to run on a VM in-house. Core count, instance count, or site. Are all three "ridiculous?"

None of Microsoft's license types require a certain Hyper-V capacity. In fact the whole "we were required to over-allocate Hyper-V so run Linux on the spare capacity" claim makes no sense.

[a2tech]

Yes, they're all ridiculous. Also their licensing model is so hideously complex even different license advisors from Microsoft will give you different answers as to what you need. The only way you feel comfortable being fully in compliance with licensing is by massively overbuying. Its a ridiculous burden to place on a business.

[teilo]

There is no such thing as instance or site pricing for Windows Server. Where are you getting that from?

There is only core licensing, and you have to license all cores in a hypervisor, 16 minimum, and then you can only run two Windows Server instances unless you re-licensing all cores on the host a second time. The exception to that rule is Datacenter edition, which is only cost effective for large businesses running high-density servers. (7.5x the price for the same number of cores vs. Standard.)

http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/2/9/7290EA05-DC56-4...