Hyper-V replication licensing
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller Scott you always mention having HR hire competent people, yet you do understand that a lot of places are tiny, and have no clue.
I understand this well, but we can't assume that businesses are stupid, or don't care, when making recommendations. Because you either get into pointless picking and choosing (why assume this one, incredibly unlikely mistake and not millions of more obvious ones, none of which are fully within the context of the question at hand) or you go down the slippery slope of assuming that they are totally incompetent which will always end in the assumption that the business will fail and that they should not spend a penny but just give up now.
Unless you are going to assume the obvious result of the base assumption, you can't use that kind of logic. If you know the IT person specifically and know that this is an exact risk that that person is very, very prone to, that's more or less fine. That's dealing with a specific failing. But just assuming that all small businesses are stupid or incapable and that it will result in random, significant failures then we obvious assume total failure as a final result.
And mathematically, by far more SMBs do fail, so this is a reasonable assumption. But we can never give advice based on that assumption. Does that make sense? Sure, most businesses fail, but we must give advice assuming that this one will not and that it operates on logic and good practices most of the time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Don't use the crap excuse of "Have HR hire competent people" when often HR doesn't have the slighted clue about what IT involves.
THey don't need to. Not at all. Good hiring doesn't require that. It's thinking that it does is where HR departments get in trouble, which is an HR failing that management needs to fix.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller argument here is that if they don't what they are doing to outsource it, and I don't disagree. Yet many businesses refuse to, and do it them selves.
But that is not our problem and we should not be assuming those mistakes on their behalf and wasting their money randomly because we assume that they will make an imagined mistake.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Bringing stupid issues as this up.
You brought it up and didn't explain why you were recommending doing something mathematically risky. I didn't bring it up at all. Nor did @JaredBusch we only pointed out that buying an extra license was totally unnecessary and would just be a waste of money.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Nothing wrong with tape on its own. But I would explain to them that this is a mismatch of needs. They clearly dont' see themselves as a viable business, but as a hobby (no virtualization.) If they don't virtualize, they can't reasonably say that they think this is a real business, they are SO far below the home line it isn't even discussable. No grey area at all, this is a hobby and a joke to their owners. Make that absolutely clear.
Scott your insulting hobbyists. Most of the OS instances in my house are virtual. My home datacenter looks down on their business practices.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Nothing wrong with tape on its own. But I would explain to them that this is a mismatch of needs. They clearly dont' see themselves as a viable business, but as a hobby (no virtualization.) If they don't virtualize, they can't reasonably say that they think this is a real business, they are SO far below the home line it isn't even discussable. No grey area at all, this is a hobby and a joke to their owners. Make that absolutely clear.
Scott your insulting hobbyists. Most of the OS instances in my house are virtual. My home datacenter looks down on their business practices.
That's why I said, only low end hobbyists. Any serious hobbyist would obviously be virtual, and backed up.
-
I just showed up to say you are all wrong
They should buy Software Assurance which will let them migrate that license back and forth whenever they want at a lower cost than buying a full stand alone license.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
If the original backup host fails in 90 days, the client is then on the hook to Microsoft. It's far cheaper to purchase a second standard license then to worry about it.
Not in 99.999% of cases. Remember you are talking about a double failure, not a single failure. So let's run the numbers assuming a single license is $700.
For 90 Day Failover Window Licensing Cost: $700
For Sub 90 Day Double Failover Licensing Cost: $1400The drug you are looking for is failing over to reduce maintenance window times for host/hypervisor patching every patch Tuesday (assuming Hyper-V).
-
@John-Nicholson said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
I just showed up to say you are all wrong
They should buy Software Assurance which will let them migrate that license back and forth whenever they want at a lower cost than buying a full stand alone license.
Yup, way better than a second license. But easily still not worth it based on this risk alone. Even if the business was making a million an hour (which would make them a Fortune 100) it's only worth a few hundred bucks to mitigate this risk alone. SA might be worth it for lots of other reasons, I'm an SA fan generally, it would have to be really cheap to make sense here just from the ability to fall back really quickly. But with the other benefits, is easily the way to go.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
If the original backup host fails in 90 days, the client is then on the hook to Microsoft. It's far cheaper to purchase a second standard license then to worry about it.
Not in 99.999% of cases. Remember you are talking about a double failure, not a single failure. So let's run the numbers assuming a single license is $700.
For 90 Day Failover Window Licensing Cost: $700
For Sub 90 Day Double Failover Licensing Cost: $1400The drug you are looking for is failing over to reduce maintenance window times for host/hypervisor patching every patch Tuesday (assuming Hyper-V).
Yes, very true. If there is a need for scheduled downtime, that would be very different. That would easily justify the cost, but few SMBs are hit by that. More than are hit with the 90 day problem, but still pretty few. Since you need scheduled downtime for the OS anyway that can't be avoided through any means in these scenarios, it's can't be a significant deal.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Mike-Davis Hyper-V replication works fine but there is no automated power on or failure detection. That requires you setup a cluster and use SCCM I believe.
I use basic replication at a number of locations and it works great.
If you are using replication for DR, then yes you need the second windows license. Because the potential for migration is always there.
If you are failing over manually. Then you can get away with one server.
But I have to ask, if you are dropping a few grand for the hardware, why would you not spend the extra on the second License and have HA setup?
-
When did that SA benefit get added?
-
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
If you are using replication for DR, then yes you need the second windows license. Because the potential for migration is always there.
If you are failing over manually. Then you can get away with one server.
Even replicating for DR, doesn't imply that you set it to start automatically. And even then, it's only migrating BACK that triggers the need for a second license.
-
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
But I have to ask, if you are dropping a few grand for the hardware, why would you not spend the extra on the second License and have HA setup?
Because you can have HA without spending that money AND in most SMBs that's still a lot of extra money.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
If you are using replication for DR, then yes you need the second windows license. Because the potential for migration is always there.
If you are failing over manually. Then you can get away with one server.
Even replicating for DR, doesn't imply that you set it to start automatically. And even then, it's only migrating BACK that triggers the need for a second license.
Agreed, it the automatic fail situation that as I understood from the Microsoft green guy at MS. That required the extra license.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
But I have to ask, if you are dropping a few grand for the hardware, why would you not spend the extra on the second License and have HA setup?
Because you can have HA without spending that money AND in most SMBs that's still a lot of extra money.
So what... You setup autofailover, then when you see a failover you then disable that until the 90 days is over?
-
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
But I have to ask, if you are dropping a few grand for the hardware, why would you not spend the extra on the second License and have HA setup?
Because you can have HA without spending that money AND in most SMBs that's still a lot of extra money.
So what... You setup autofailover, then when you see a failover you then disable that until the 90 days is over?
Yup, that's one way. If you are doing Hyper-V Replication, though, there isn't any means of failing back as the replication is one way, so nothing more to do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
But I have to ask, if you are dropping a few grand for the hardware, why would you not spend the extra on the second License and have HA setup?
Because you can have HA without spending that money AND in most SMBs that's still a lot of extra money.
So what... You setup autofailover, then when you see a failover you then disable that until the 90 days is over?
Yup, that's one way. If you are doing Hyper-V Replication, though, there isn't any means of failing back as the replication is one way, so nothing more to do.
Really? So once it's failed, and you repair the other box, wait 90 days, then you have to configure replication back the other way?
-
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
But I have to ask, if you are dropping a few grand for the hardware, why would you not spend the extra on the second License and have HA setup?
Because you can have HA without spending that money AND in most SMBs that's still a lot of extra money.
So what... You setup autofailover, then when you see a failover you then disable that until the 90 days is over?
Yup, that's one way. If you are doing Hyper-V Replication, though, there isn't any means of failing back as the replication is one way, so nothing more to do.
Really? So once it's failed, and you repair the other box, wait 90 days, then you have to configure replication back the other way?
Yup. That's how one way replication works
And since this lines up with the licensing, keeps you from accidentally violating the license naturally and is the logical way to do this anyway as you wouldn't want to migrate back until there was another failure, it works pretty awesomely. -
Or just buy a second license and do whatever the hell you want.
Or, like probably like 95% of people do, say "That's a bunch of crap" and just do what you want.
