Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster
-
@iroal said in W2016 Licences for cluster:
I asked last week to Microsoft and I'm still waiting for the answer.
MS, as a rule, does not provide guidance on these things.
-
@iroal said in W2016 Licences for cluster:
I am not clear what licenses I need from Windows 2016 to mount a Cluster with 3 Vm on 2 Dell servers.
So let's break this down:
3 VMs, 2 Servers
Each server needs to be licensed for the full volume that it might run. If you want mobility of your licenses you need to be able to run 3 VMs on each server. Each Windows 2016 Standard license "pack" gives you two VMs on a single machine. So to have this licensed without mobility you need two Windows 2016 Standard coverages (this could be two on one server or one on each with 2 VMs on one and one on the other.)
For full mobility (ability to move the workload back and forth whenever you want) you would license each server fully, so two Windows 2016 Standard packs per server.
-
With Software Assurance license mobility, I believe that you can deploy two Windows 2016 Standard Packs, add on SA and then have the right to move the workloads between the two machines.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
With Software Assurance license mobility, I believe that you can deploy two Windows 2016 Standard Packs, add on SA and then have the right to move the workloads between the two machines.
You can do it with two licenses if everything is always running on one machine or the other. All that you get from essay is the ability to migrate everything back-and-forth but you could not split the workload.
Well I guess with the workload only being three virtual machines you could technically split it with only two licenses because you never have more than two in one if it's split
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
With Software Assurance license mobility, I believe that you can deploy two Windows 2016 Standard Packs, add on SA and then have the right to move the workloads between the two machines.
You can do it with two licenses if everything is always running on one machine or the other. All that you get from essay is the ability to migrate everything back-and-forth but you could not split the workload.
Well I guess with the workload only being three virtual machines you could technically split it with only two licenses because you never have more than two in one if it's split
Right, I think you can split it in this circumstance because with three you either have all on one or any combination of split (since there are only two nodes) means that each license is intact. It would not work with one more or one fewer VM, or with one additional node. It's specifically a case with three VMs (or one VM) and two nodes that makes this unique situation easier.
-
I'm not sure the new license mobility allows for Windows Server 2016 to move between servers you own willy nilly.
In the past you could move a Windows Server 2012 (etc) license between hosts once every 90 days.According to this link
Examples of some of the ”application servers” that are eligible for License Mobility through Software Assurance are Microsoft SQL Server database software, Microsoft Lync Server, Microsoft Dynamics CRM Server, Microsoft System Center, Microsoft Exchange Server, and Microsoft SharePoint Server. However, the underlying Windows Server operating system needs to be licensed by the service provider via SPLA, and consumed by you as part of the infrastructure as a service. In other words, license mobility is not applicable to Windows Server.
This specifically spells out that Windows Server 2016 (or any version) is not included in license mobility.
-
@Dashrender that makes sense as we never heard about people being able to do this. That SPLA is required to make it work would explain it. Maybe it is purely for applications.
-
That links about application mobility not serve a mobility I don't think that's quite a portable to this case
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
That links about application mobility not serve a mobility I don't think that's quite a portable to this case
Applicable Siri?
-
This case has no service provider it's his equipment his servers his hypervisor his licensing
-
@scottalanmiller yes Siri didn't quite get that one all correct
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
@scottalanmiller yes Siri didn't quite get that one all correct
Portable was a word too close to the topic so I wasn't sure if it was completely random or not
-
@JaredBusch said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
That links about application mobility not serve a mobility I don't think that's quite a portable to this case
I'm not sure how you boiled it down to application mobility only, here's the intro
This guide gives you an overview of Microsoft License Mobility through Software Assurance, which is available as a Software Assurance benefit, and outlines the detailed requirements and steps to use this benefit. License Mobility through Software Assurance gives Microsoft Volume Licensing customers the flexibility to deploy certain server applications with active Software Assurance either on premises or in the cloud.
I will grant you that this guide is about IaaS or PaaS and not privately owned equipment.
Though my previously bolded line
In other words, license mobility is not applicable to Windows Server.
Specifically says it does not apply to Window Server.
Do you have another MS link that specifically says that SA does grant license mobility to Windows Server licenses?
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
Do you have another MS link that specifically says that SA does grant license mobility to Windows Server licenses?
I found something that seems suggested, but nothing that said for sure that it did.
-
Thanks a lot for the Help.
It is incredible you call Microsoft and they don't know the answer.
Of course the reseller want to sell me the SA licences.
-
@iroal said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
Thanks a lot for the Help.
It is incredible you call Microsoft and they don't know the answer.
Of course the reseller want to sell me the SA licences.
Personally, I think if you are buying MS solutions, you should buy SA. This ensures you can always use the latest and greatest version of that software, and two, you don't get management holding you back because you need to spend money on it.. it's already spent, and you just keep renewing it.
If they are so cheap as to not want to maintain these system correctly, then they should use other software that costs less or is free.
-
@iroal said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
Thanks a lot for the Help.
It is incredible you call Microsoft and they don't know the answer.
Of course the reseller want to sell me the SA licences.
MS has no reason to answer, it costs them money to give free advice when really it is between you and your lawyer. Remember, MS is a business and makes the most money from you not getting easy answers. You have to pay their partners to tell you how you can use MS' software and because MS makes no comment, they have no legal ties to the advice. So you are always on your own. MS has no business reason to ensure that you are not living in fear of an audit.
-
@Dashrender I completely disagree with that statement. S a is a very good choice depending on things such as refresh cycle and all that good stuff. While staying on the most recent operating system is a great thing migrating a server is not a small business task. so by the time you account for all the costs involved essay most certainly is not worth it for somebody to choose a slightly longer refresh cycle on their servers.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
@iroal said in Windows Server 2016 Licences for cluster:
Thanks a lot for the Help.
It is incredible you call Microsoft and they don't know the answer.
Of course the reseller want to sell me the SA licences.
Personally, I think if you are buying MS solutions, you should buy SA. This ensures you can always use the latest and greatest version of that software, and two, you don't get management holding you back because you need to spend money on it.. it's already spent, and you just keep renewing it.
If they are so cheap as to not want to maintain these system correctly, then they should use other software that costs less or is free.
I don't think that it is quite that cut and dry, but in general I agree. If you are using any system, you need to be committed to keeping it up to date. SA is not always the best way to do that with MS, but generally.
