Cost / right-sizingNational flower distributor, anonymized × red9CS-0445
Proved a 16-core Azure server carries the full workload, so SQL licensing dropped by half
The problem. A national flower distributor running its production workload on Azure was paying SQL Server Enterprise licensing on a 32-core server, and nobody could say with confidence that a smaller box would hold. Cutting cores on a guess risked the whole production workload, so the oversized server kept running and the license bill kept landing.
What we did. We captured a full production trace and replayed it against a candidate 16-core Azure VM with a Distributed Replay test, so the smaller server ran the real workload before anyone touched production. The 16-core box carried the load with room to spare.
Red9 · Performance Impact
SQL licensing eliminated
32 → 16
Cores, with half the SQL Server Enterprise licensing released once the server dropped to 16.
License + compute
~50% lower
On the same production workload, after the right-size.
Replay evidence
2x / 4x
The 16-core VM posted about 2x lower CPU and 4x lower duration under the full trace.
License + compute
~50% lower
half
Replay duration score
~4x lower
headroom
The math behind these numbers. Halving the cores from 32 to 16 halves the SQL Server Enterprise core licensing, since that licensing is charged per core. The 2x CPU and 4x duration figures are the scores the Distributed Replay run recorded on the 16-core VM against the same trace, roughly 2 million transactions for a full production day. Every figure comes from the client's own replay captures.
The result. The server now runs the same daily workload of about 2 million transactions on 16 cores instead of 32, so SQL Server Enterprise licensing and compute fell by close to half, and the replay test was the proof it would hold before production ever changed.
The technical detail
What the test showed. A production trace replayed on a candidate 16-core Azure VM cleared the full workload while posting about 2x lower CPU and 4x lower duration than the 32-core server it would replace.
What we changed (identifiers generalized for privacy):
-- Distributed Replay: captured a full production trace, replayed it on the 16-core candidate.
# baseline 32-core Azure VM : CPU score / duration score = 1.00x reference
# candidate 16-core Azure VM : ~2x lower CPU score, ~4x lower duration score
-- workload replayed: ~2,000,000 transactions (one full production day)
-- => 16 cores carry the load; SQL Server Enterprise licensing halved
The replay proved the smaller server absorbs the real workload, so the right-size from 32 cores to 16 went ahead with the license and compute cost cut roughly in half.