<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL Server 2008 R2: Think Virtualization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/08/whats-new-in-r2-utility-computing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/08/whats-new-in-r2-utility-computing/</link>
	<description>Your technology pain-relief experts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:37:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kendra Little</title>
		<link>http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/08/whats-new-in-r2-utility-computing/comment-page-1/#comment-32737</link>
		<dc:creator>Kendra Little</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brentozar.com/?p=4611#comment-32737</guid>
		<description>Hi Donald, 

Lots of things impact the cost of the product. This looks like a good place to start on the Microsoft site: http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/get-sql-server.aspx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Donald, </p>
<p>Lots of things impact the cost of the product. This looks like a good place to start on the Microsoft site: <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/get-sql-server.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/en/us/get-sql-server.aspx</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donald Worley</title>
		<link>http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/08/whats-new-in-r2-utility-computing/comment-page-1/#comment-32736</link>
		<dc:creator>Donald Worley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Aug 2011 17:46:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brentozar.com/?p=4611#comment-32736</guid>
		<description>Hi

I went you to sent me the cost for the SQL Server 2008 R2. My office went to buy it

Thanks 
Donald</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi</p>
<p>I went you to sent me the cost for the SQL Server 2008 R2. My office went to buy it</p>
<p>Thanks<br />
Donald</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony Lucero</title>
		<link>http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/08/whats-new-in-r2-utility-computing/comment-page-1/#comment-23518</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lucero</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 21:52:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brentozar.com/?p=4611#comment-23518</guid>
		<description>Riddle me this batman.  

Want a challenge? Show me why I&#039;m forced to purchase an enterprise licenses to use vMotion with Sql Server 2008 R2. And if that even makes since.  The 90 day restriction is now gone, right?  I&#039;m purchasing standard licences bases on virtual processors to # of cores per the document.  but if all hell breakes loose I can&#039;t move my effected virtual server over to another host?  Not automatically by the way (ie no load balancing) just as an option to get the server back up faster in case of a crash?  As you well know the price for Enterprise would simply have me going back to a physical box.  My assumption is 90% of all virtual installs are done this way. As the rules have changed so many times many people are probably upgrading there standard versions as if they had pyhsical cpu&#039;s 1 to 1 and calling it a day, but the minute they move the virtual host to another physical box they just became non compliant?  am I right or wrong? 

Brent I love your mind so give you the first crack at this, tomorrow I post on Sql Server Central.

Thanks,
Tony</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Riddle me this batman.  </p>
<p>Want a challenge? Show me why I&#8217;m forced to purchase an enterprise licenses to use vMotion with Sql Server 2008 R2. And if that even makes since.  The 90 day restriction is now gone, right?  I&#8217;m purchasing standard licences bases on virtual processors to # of cores per the document.  but if all hell breakes loose I can&#8217;t move my effected virtual server over to another host?  Not automatically by the way (ie no load balancing) just as an option to get the server back up faster in case of a crash?  As you well know the price for Enterprise would simply have me going back to a physical box.  My assumption is 90% of all virtual installs are done this way. As the rules have changed so many times many people are probably upgrading there standard versions as if they had pyhsical cpu&#8217;s 1 to 1 and calling it a day, but the minute they move the virtual host to another physical box they just became non compliant?  am I right or wrong? </p>
<p>Brent I love your mind so give you the first crack at this, tomorrow I post on Sql Server Central.</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Tony</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VIRTUMANIA Episode 9: We Got Your Virtualized SQL Right Here! &#124; VM /ETC</title>
		<link>http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2009/08/whats-new-in-r2-utility-computing/comment-page-1/#comment-20097</link>
		<dc:creator>VIRTUMANIA Episode 9: We Got Your Virtualized SQL Right Here! &#124; VM /ETC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brentozar.com/?p=4611#comment-20097</guid>
		<description>[...] SQL Server 2008 R2: Virtualization for Databases – introduces the concept of the DAC Pack and relates it to virtualization. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SQL Server 2008 R2: Virtualization for Databases – introduces the concept of the DAC Pack and relates it to virtualization. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Object Caching 536/542 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.brentozar.com @ 2012-02-09 04:13:00 -->
