Backup System For 5 PC SMB
-
@Dashrender said:
no, because MS allows you to move non OEM server licenses to the hosts every 90 days, be it physical or virtual.
If you use Datacenter on every host that becomes somewhat irrelevant.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
no, because MS allows you to move non OEM server licenses to the hosts every 90 days, be it physical or virtual.
If you use Datacenter on every host that becomes somewhat irrelevant.
However, the licensing for Datacenter for 5 "servers" could cost just as much as a DIY VDI approach, yea? (What's the Price on Server 2012 R2 DC? )
-
@dafyre said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
no, because MS allows you to move non OEM server licenses to the hosts every 90 days, be it physical or virtual.
If you use Datacenter on every host that becomes somewhat irrelevant.
However, the licensing for Datacenter for 5 "servers" could cost just as much as a DIY VDI approach, yea? (What's the Price on Server 2012 R2 DC? )
About $2k per server. Yes, but you do get unlimited licencing so it's way better than VDI, unless you actually need a true VDI.
Even for $10k it would be heard to bulid a good in house VDI setup. Usually your talking $30-40k starting. VDI goes against the normal combine loads because we know what the load will be, and combines lots of unkown loads, Desktop loads are pretty unpredictable going up and down all the time.
-
@Jason said:
About $2k per server. Yes, but you do get unlimited licencing so it's way better than VDI, unless you actually need a true VDI.
Going this route the customer could get VDI for the desktops AND server options like AD, central file server, intranet portal and more for "free".
-
LOL, not to beat a dead horse here, but I still don't get why this would be kosher in a server environment.
-
@BRRABill said:
LOL, not to beat a dead horse here, but I still don't get why this would be kosher in a server environment.
Because the licenses are wholly unrelated. There is nothing about a desktop license that applies to a server one.
-
Or do you mean why there is logic to doing one and not to the other?
-
I mean that...
I have a server licensed, whether it is physical or virtual. How could I possibly boot up another copy of that server (the virtualboot of the backup image to test the backup) while the original is still running?
I know there are "cold boot" rights, which this would seem to fall under, but you need SA for those.
Also, it was mentioned earlier that to test it you'd have to perform a BMR. But wouldn't that ALSO be a violation, since the same server and license are active in two places?
-
@BRRABill said:
I have a server licensed, whether it is physical or virtual. How could I possibly boot up another copy of that server (the virtualboot of the backup image to test the backup) while the original is still running?
Because that with DC licensing you license capacity, not VMs. The idea that you have a "server licensed" doesn't exist.
-
Without DC you are still licensing capacity and not VMs, So If I had 2 WIndows Server VMs that could run on 3 hosts in event of a failure, I would have to have 3 Standard Server 2012 Licenses, one for each host, even though i only have two vms.
-
What is "DC licensing"?
-
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
Without DC you are still licensing capacity and not VMs, So If I had 2 WIndows Server VMs that could run on 3 hosts in event of a failure, I would have to have 3 Standard Server 2012 Licenses, one for each host, even though i only have two vms.
That's the scenario I would be in. 1 host that allows 2 VMs.
And even if you are running the Hyper-V Server with 1 VM, doesn't that need to be licensed somehow?
BTW: do you want me to move this to another topic since we've drifted so far?
-
@BRRABill said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
Without DC you are still licensing capacity and not VMs, So If I had 2 WIndows Server VMs that could run on 3 hosts in event of a failure, I would have to have 3 Standard Server 2012 Licenses, one for each host, even though i only have two vms.
That's the scenario I would be in. 1 host that allows 2 VMs.
And even if you are running the Hyper-V Server with 1 VM, doesn't that need to be licensed somehow?
BTW: do you want me to move this to another topic since we've drifted so far?
1 Standard 2012R2 License will give you the ability to run 2 Windows Server VMs on a machine.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Because that with DC licensing you license capacity, not VMs. The idea that you have a "server licensed" doesn't exist.
But I can't just run a Windows Server in VirtualBox. It has to be licensed somehow, right?
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Because that with DC licensing you license capacity, not VMs. The idea that you have a "server licensed" doesn't exist.
But I can't just run a Windows Server in VirtualBox. It has to be licensed somehow, right?
Yes, you have to use a license on the machine holding virtualbox (bad idea never put a server on there except to test)
I think where you may be getting confused is that you don't physically install a license on the machine. You just have to have enough licenses to cover your use scenario to be legal.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Because that with DC licensing you license capacity, not VMs. The idea that you have a "server licensed" doesn't exist.
But I can't just run a Windows Server in VirtualBox. It has to be licensed somehow, right?
Of course. Everything needs to be licensed, all of it. You license the platform you are on for the capacity that you need. Same with VDI.
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
Yes, you have to use a license on the machine holding virtualbox (bad idea never put a server on there except to test)
I think where you may be getting confused is that you don't physically install a license on the machine. You just have to have enough licenses to cover your use scenario to be legal.
Yes, that was just a (bad) example.
OK. As you may know from my other thread, I am a little new to the VM thing. I figured they all still needed to be activated and whatnot.
-
@BRRABill said:
@brianlittlejohn said:
Without DC you are still licensing capacity and not VMs, So If I had 2 WIndows Server VMs that could run on 3 hosts in event of a failure, I would have to have 3 Standard Server 2012 Licenses, one for each host, even though i only have two vms.
That's the scenario I would be in. 1 host that allows 2 VMs.
And even if you are running the Hyper-V Server with 1 VM, doesn't that need to be licensed somehow?
BTW: do you want me to move this to another topic since we've drifted so far?
HyperV is never a factor. It is always "virtual" or "not virtual." What hypervisor you use cannot ever be a factor.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Of course. Everything needs to be licensed, all of it. You license the platform you are on for the capacity that you need. Same with VDI.
I think my words are confusing activation and licensing.
