未经许可的模式中缺少功能

pdf“GRID LICENSING DU-07757-001 _v4.0（GRID）| 2016年8月”，“第3章。
带有PASSTHROUGH的许可网格虚拟工作站“明确定义 -
未经许可的Tesla GPU支持单个虚拟显示器头，最大分辨率为2560×1600。



以下为原文

The pdf "GRID LICENSING DU-07757-001 _v4.0 (GRID) | August 2016", "Chapter 3.
LICENSING GRID VIRTUAL WORKSTATION WITH PASSTHROUGH" clearly defines -
unlicensed Tesla GPUs support a single virtual display head with maximum resolution of 2560×1600.

嗨，asg，
显示器头与没有。
对于XenApp来说，显示器有点不同......有几个博客可能有所帮助 - 如果有差距，请告诉我......
https://virtuallyvisual.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/nvidia-grid-more-info-on-vapps-and-vpcvws-licensing/
https://virtuallyvisual.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/nvidia-grid-rdsh-licensing-including-xenapp/
这有帮助吗？
我们希望将博客信息汇总到文档中。
更好。
最好的祝愿，
雷切尔



以下为原文

Hi asg,

the display heads vs. no. of monitors is a bit different for XenApp... there are a couple of blogs that might help - let me know if there are gaps...


https://virtuallyvisual.wordpress.com/2016/09/21/nvidia-grid-more-info-on-vapps-and-vpcvws-licensing/


https://virtuallyvisual.wordpress.com/2016/09/05/nvidia-grid-rdsh-licensing-including-xenapp/

Does this help? We are looking to roll up the blog information into the doc. better.

Best wishes,
Rachel

感谢mcerveny和Rachel的回复。
我已经阅读了许可相关指南并看到了'特斯拉（未经许可）模式'。
不幸的是，我不清楚这种未经授权的模式究竟意味着什么以及后果是什么。
未经许可的GPU是否通过XenApp服务器无价值？
换句话说：GPU对图形性能没有任何影响吗？



以下为原文

Thanks mcerveny and Rachel for your replies.

I'd already read the licensing related guides and saw the 'Tesla (unlicensed) mode'.

Unfortunately it isn't clear to me what this unlicensed mode exactly means and what the consequences are.

Is an unlicensed GPU passthrough'd to a XenApp server worthless? In other words: does the GPU hasn't any effect on graphics performance?

你好
除了上面提到的单一显示器和显示器分辨率限制之外，您的客户是否考虑了他们将从哪里获得M10驱动程序，如何在发布新驱动程序时升级/维护这些驱动程序以及他们如何监控和支持GPU？
目前，M10驱动程序似乎无法从可公开访问的Nvidia驱动程序下载页面获得，这显然使得入门有点棘手。
他们是否会在某个时刻，我不确定。
我在论坛上看到了无数的线程，询问他们在哪里得到了早期版本GPU的支持，原因有多种，通常是K1 / K2卡。
答案总是“回到你从哪里购买”，这通常是合作伙伴/转售商，可能没有客户解决问题所需的深入知识和技能，即使他们这样做
，他们是24x7吗？
我知道你的客户显然是在努力降低成本，但是SUMs值得拥有。
由于这些GPU将在Passthrough中运行，因此Hypervisor无法真正看到它们，并且由于您的客户端不会在Hypervisor中安装驱动程序，因此他们必须从各个VM中监视它们，而不是通过
虚拟机管理程序。
跟踪GPU利用率以获得规模/性能虽然显然可行，但并不容易。
只是出于兴趣，是您的客户不喜欢的物理GPU的成本，还是许可模式的成本？
问候
本



以下为原文

Hi

Apart from the single monitor and display resolution limitations mentioned above, has your client considered where they will get the M10 drivers from, how they will upgrade / maintain those drivers when new ones are released and also how they will monitor and support the GPUs?

Currently, the M10 drivers do not appear to be available from the publicly accessible Nvidia drivers download page, this obviously makes getting started a little tricky. Whether they will be at some point, I'm unsure.

I have seen countless threads on forums asking where they get support for earlier version GPUs for a wide variety of reasons, usually these are the K1 / K2 cards. And the answer is always, "Go back to where you purchased them from", which is typically a partner / re-seller who may not have the in-depth knowledge and skills your client needs to resolve their issue, and even if they do, are they 24x7? I know your client is obviously trying to reduce costs, but SUMs is worth having.

As these GPUs will be run in Passthrough, the Hypervisor can't really see them, and as your client won't be installing a driver in the Hypervisor, they'll have to monitor them from within the individual VMs, rather than through the Hypervisor. Tracking GPU utilisation for scale / performance, although obviously possible, won't be so easy.

Just out of interest, is it the cost of the physical GPUs your client doesn't like, or the cost of the licensing model?

Regards

Ben

你的观点对BJones有意义。
感谢那！
我工作的客户对许可成本感到失望。
GPU加速桌面会话（XenApp）主要用于任务/知识工作者。
硬件要求进行初始投资，但许可模式使成本增加一倍。
与GRIDK1 / K2相比，GPU加速RDS / XA会话的成本大大提高了新的许可模式。
关于设计者/ CAD / CAM等，众所周知的是具有例如工作站的工作站。
Quadro价格昂贵，因此很明显虚拟工作站价格也高得多。
我正在谈论的客户希望任务工作者（如浏览器和Office等应用程序）的GPU加速是“商品”，而且成本影响相对较小。
也许正在等待英特尔Iris Pro成为最先进的图形工作站的主流选项和NV GRID。
我认为一些竞争会对客户有利;）



以下为原文

Your points make sense BJones. Thanks for that!

The customers I work for, are disappointed mostly about the licensing costs. A GPU accelerated desktop session (XenApp) is mainly used for task-/knowledge workers. The hardware asks for a initial investment, but the licensing model doubles the costs. Compared with the GRIDK1/K2 the costs for a GPU accelerated RDS/XA session raised substantially with the new license model.
Regarding designers/CAD/CAM and so on, it's common known that a workstation with e.g. a Quadro is expensive and therefore it is evident a virtual workstation is also (much) higher priced.

Customers I'm talking with expect GPU acceleration for task workers (apps like browsers and Office) to be 'commodity' with a relative minor costs impact.
Maybe the're waiting for Intel Iris Pro being the mainstream option and NV GRID for the state of the art graphic workstation.
I think some competition will do good for customers ;)

竞争对每个人都有好处！
对于消费者来说，它给了他们选择和讨价还价的能力。
对于供应商而言，它有助于推动创新以在市场和工程师/建筑师中保持领先，这只是为了让他们更多的技术可以玩，这总是一件好事:-)
通过将GPU与CPU放在同一个芯片上，英特尔肯定有一个很好的解决方案，但是看起来他们牺牲核心数来做到这一点（我找不到一个超过4个核心？！）这会大大影响服务器
密度，这显然不是很好，因为它会导致额外的成本。
你也可以限制在2GB帧缓冲区。
随着技术的发展，这可能会发生变化。
此外，不要忘记AMD现在也进入了这个领域，他们对Nvidia也有不同的方法，称之为MxGPU（多用户GPU）。
他们使用SR-IOV来做，而不是GRID软件替代方案。
但是，除非最近发生了变化，否则SR-IOV的一个限制是VM必须绑定到该硬件，并且在发生故障时无法迁移到其他主机。
是的，目前这种迁移技术（vMotion / XenMotion）也不适用于Nvidia，但是通过使用软件层，Hypervisor供应商至少可以拥有开发这项技术的机会，而对于硬件，迄今为止没有人这样做过。
。
使用软件层的另一个好处是，添加新功能和增强功能更容易，而使用硬件，显然不是那么多。
我认为可以肯定地说，Nvidia确实（让我们说）用GRID 2.0的初始定价模式“过于雄心勃勃”，但是他们确实认识到这就是为什么它很快就被改进到现在的状态，这更令人愉悦
。
根据解决方案的设计方式，它可以非常划算。
对于任务/知识工作者，您可以使用正确的CPU /内存/ GPU组合查看每个物理服务器超过100个用户。
除此之外，它们不再被束缚在他们的办公桌上，不再需要运行和维护PC，空调成本因为所有的PC等等，这些东西都加起来并且它们具有某种价值。
通过在服务器中使用GPU，CPU不必如此努力工作，因此每台服务器可以获得更多用户，实际上您需要更少的物理服务器来支持相同数量的用户。
由于您不需要购买，运行，冷却，维护，支持和许可尽可能多的硬件，因此可以降低解决方案的总成本。
如果将K1与M10与XenDesktop或Horizo​​n进行比较，则K1将支持每卡最多32个用户。
使用相同的用例，M10将支持64，并且由于更好的架构和功能集提供了更好的体验，以及我上面提到的关于SUM的支持，更新，维护功能增强等等你没有得到的
图形处理器。
另外，不要忘记那是并发用户，而不是总用户。
将另一个K1和M10添加到同一个服务器中，如果你没有遇到CPU争用问题，你现在看64个用户（2x K1）而不是128个（2x M10）。
这是密度的两倍，所以理论上，你需要减少50％的物理服务器来支持相同数量的用户。
如果您在vSphere上运行Citrix，那么硬件到机架，安装/配置，供电，冷却，维护，支持以及更少的Hypervisor都需要许可，这是非常省钱的！
...
您是否介意我询问，您的客户如何在此平台上寻求支持？
问候
本



以下为原文

Competition is good for everyone! For consumers it gives them choice and bargaining power. For vendors, it helps drive innovation to stay ahead in the market and for engineers / architects, well it just gives them more tech to play with, which is always a good thing :-)

By having the GPU sitting on the same die as the CPU, Intel definately has a great solution there, however it seems they sacrifice Core count to do this (I can't find one with more than 4 Cores?!) which massively impacts server density, which is obviously not great as it leads to additional costs. You're limited to 2GB frame buffer with this as well. Maybe that will change as the technology evolves. Also, don't forget AMD have moved into this arena now as well, they also have a different approach to Nvidia and called it MxGPU (Multi User GPU). They use SR-IOV to do it, rather than the GRID software alternative. However, unless things have recently changed, one of the limitations of SR-IOV is that a VM is bound to that piece of hardware and cannot be migrated to another host in the event of a failure. Yes, currently this migration technology (vMotion / XenMotion) is not available for Nvidia either, however by using a software layer, the Hypervisor vendors can at least have the oppertunity to develop this technology, whereas with hardware, no one has done this to date. Another advantage of using a software layer, is that it's easier to add new features and enhancements, whereas with hardare, obviously not so much.

I think it's safe to say that Nvidia did (let's say) get "overly ambitious" with their initial pricing model for GRID 2.0, however they did recognise this which is why it was quickly refined to what it is now, which is much more pleasing.

Depending on how the solution is designed, it can be pretty cost effective. For the Task / Knowledge workers, you can be looking at over 100 users per physical server with the right CPU / Memory / GPU combination. Add to that the fact they are no longer chained to their desks, no longer need to have PCs running and maintained, Air Conditioning costs because of all the PCs etc etc, these things all add up and they have a value of some sort.

By using a GPU in the servers, the CPUs don't have to work so hard, so you get more users per server, up to a point where you actually need less physical servers to support the same amount of users. The total cost of the solution can be reduced as you don't need to purchase, run, cool, maintain, support and license as much hardware.

If you compare a K1 to an M10 with XenDesktop or Horizon, the K1 would support a Max of 32 users per Card. With the same use case, the M10 will support 64, and give a better experience due to better architecture and feature set, plus what I mentioned above about SUMs for support, updates, maintanence feature enhancements etc which you don't get with the older GPUs. Also, don't forget that's Concurrent User, not Total Users. Adding another K1 and M10 into the same server, you're now looking at 64 users (2x K1) compared to 128 (2x M10) if you don't run into CPU contention issues that is. That's double the density, so theroetically, you'd need 50% less physical servers to support the same amount of users. That's less hardware to rack, install / configure, power, cool, maintain, support and less Hypervisors to license, if you run Citrix on-top of vSphere, that's quite a saving! ...

Do you mind me asking, how may users is your client looking to support on this platform?

Regards

Ben

警告，未经许可的行为会再次更改（对于> = M6）：
Grid 4.x  - 无限制（仅限弹出窗口）
网格2.x，3.x，5.x，6.0,6.1  -  3 FPS，最大分辨率1280x1024，禁用CUDA，资源分配有限
网格6.2  -  3 FPS，禁用CUDA，资源分配有限（参见https://docs.nvidia.com/grid/6.0/grid-licensing-user-guide/index.html#licensing-grid-vgpu）



以下为原文

Be warned, unlicensed behavior is changed again (for >= M6):

• Grid 4.x - without limitation (only popup)
  
• Grid 2.x,3.x,5.x,6.0,6.1 - 3 FPS, maximum resolution 1280x1024, CUDA disabled, limited resource allocations
  
• Grid 6.2 - 3 FPS, CUDA disabled, limited resource allocations (see https://docs.nvidia.com/grid/6.0/grid-licensing-user-guide/index.html#licensing-grid-vgpu)