On 02/11/11 22:36, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: > On 11/02/2011 06:34 AM, Ned Slider wrote: >> On 01/11/11 22:26, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: >>> >>> Just to be sure does that mean that for $2000 I can install on one physical >>> system and unlimited guests on that system or does that mean the $2000 are >>> only for the host system with the *ability* to host an unlimited number of >>> guests and I still have to buy a subscription for each individual guest on >>> top of that? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dennis >>> >> >> All I can tell you is that our virtualization licenses allow you to >> install on 1 host (up to 2 sockets), and on *that* one host you can then >> install as many RHEL guests as you like and they will all be entitled to >> updates through RHN without consuming any further entitlements. So >> unlimited entitled RHEL guests. > > Is that the $2000 license or how much do you pay for that? I'm trying to > understand if the costs of licensing RHEL are actually feasible for and > right now I'm a bit perplexed that their licensing isn't all that clear. > If the license indeed includes the entitlements for RHEL guests on that > host then this actually looks manageable but if you have to pony up more > on top of that for each VM then something like debian looks indeed more > attractive. > Sorry Dennis, I can't personally confirm that as licenses aren't paid out of my pocket, but it looks like Trey has already confirmed it for you. I would very much suggest you give Red Hat sales a ring or drop them an email.