Hyper-V Failover Cluster 2012R2 with Windows 10 Node?
-
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-V -
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VUsing anything other than the "pure" Hyper-V installation adds confusion because you are applying a Windows license to the control environment and have to deal with Windows licensing on top of Hyper-V. If you avoid having that extra install, it gets easy to deal with (there is nothing to track or know.) All of the complications come from the Windows Server install rather than from the Hyper-V install.
I would recommend moving to straight Hyper-V installations to make things easier and more powerful. It is safer and more performant from having fewer wasted resources in the control environment. But it requires more effort to manage in a small environment.
-
It would be nice if MS would just get rid of the ability to install Hyper-V from within a Windows server that is already running.
Treat it just like XenServer or ESXi.
Scott - can you think of any reason they don't do this? Do you think people buy extra licenses because they don't understand and allow themselves to believe that more licensing is required?
-
@Dashrender said:
It would be nice if MS would just get rid of the ability to install Hyper-V from within a Windows server that is already running.
Treat it just like XenServer or ESXi.
I'd like that, but most Windows Admins demand it. It's actually the same install method that Xen has traditionally used. That is where they copied it from.
-
@Dashrender said:
Scott - can you think of any reason they don't do this? Do you think people buy extra licenses because they don't understand and allow themselves to believe that more licensing is required?
It almost never causes people to buy more licenses, it just causes them confusion. Unless you are installing Hyper-V without any licensed Windows servers on top of it, there is no extra cost to doing this. And honestly, who uses Hyper-V if they don't virtualize Windows? If you are a pure UNIX shop, Xen is the obvious choice.
-
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VFailover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.
-
@KOOLER said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VFailover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.
Free Hyper-V works just fine, it's that it doesn't replace Windows licensing. It's just unrelated. You could say that a puppy doesn't work here either, but having a puppy doesn't cause a problem either, it's just not related to the issue at hand - that of licensing the Windows VMs on top of the hypervisor, whatever that hypervisor is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@KOOLER said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VFailover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.
Free Hyper-V works just fine, it's that it doesn't replace Windows licensing. It's just unrelated. You could say that a puppy doesn't work here either, but having a puppy doesn't cause a problem either, it's just not related to the issue at hand - that of licensing the Windows VMs on top of the hypervisor, whatever that hypervisor is.
OK, could be I misunderstood the question ...
