Hyper-V replication licensing
-
True HA at the OS level would be the ability to migrate the VMs on whim. This would mean obviously having licensing in place on every possible host for the potential total capacity of the server.
This could very easily put you into a Datacenter license, but in many cases would be a mere 2 server standard licebses.
-
@BRRABill said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Wouldn't there also be a hardware savings?
No because without a second host they have no DR fail over plan at all. Besides restoring from backup.
-
@BRRABill said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Wouldn't there also be a hardware savings?
From which aspect? Do you mean virtualizing? In theory, yes, they could, instead of HA, go down to one server and STILL improve reliability while greatly reducing cost.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@BRRABill said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Wouldn't there also be a hardware savings?
No because without a second host they have no DR fail over plan at all. Besides restoring from backup.
Not technically any need for the second host, they could just do without.
-
The idea as I understand it what @Mike-Davis haso said was to purchase 2 licenses for bare metal installs from the get-go
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
True HA at the OS level would be the ability to migrate the VMs on whim.
That's not what HA refers to. HA refers to uptime. Mainframes have no ability to migrate anything to anywhere, but are extreme HA. Ability to migrate and HA are unrelated concepts. There is an importance to portability, for sure, but it is not directly associated with HA.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
True HA at the OS level would be the ability to migrate the VMs on whim.
That's not what HA refers to. HA refers to uptime. Mainframes have no ability to migrate anything to anywhere, but are extreme HA. Ability to migrate and HA are unrelated concepts. There is an importance to portability, for sure, but it is not directly associated with HA.
SMB space scott. HA for an smb ends at 99.9% it literally doesn't go further.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
True HA at the OS level would be the ability to migrate the VMs on whim.
That's not what HA refers to. HA refers to uptime. Mainframes have no ability to migrate anything to anywhere, but are extreme HA. Ability to migrate and HA are unrelated concepts. There is an importance to portability, for sure, but it is not directly associated with HA.
SMB space scott. HA for an smb ends at 99.9% it literally doesn't go further.
Maybe even 99.0%
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
True HA at the OS level would be the ability to migrate the VMs on whim.
That's not what HA refers to. HA refers to uptime. Mainframes have no ability to migrate anything to anywhere, but are extreme HA. Ability to migrate and HA are unrelated concepts. There is an importance to portability, for sure, but it is not directly associated with HA.
SMB space scott. HA for an smb ends at 99.9% it literally doesn't go further.
Then you get HA without any of this. Normal servers are 99.99 - 99.999% out of the gate. So by that logic, you always have HA.
But that's never what HA means. HA is an order of magnitude or better than SA. Having "HA is lower that SA" makes no sense, no matter how small the business is. The idea that SMB has a different concept of HA doesn't make any sense because the same baseline always exists, and that baseline is 99.99% or higher by default.
-
@scottalanmiller HA as I've constantly been told in the SMB space is completely unachievable. Because it includes things like redundant Internet, power (for more than just the servers), fail over capabilities etc.
So you buy a single server, if your buying more than that you want HA.
Your mindset is still in the enterprises space of "to be able to get true HA you need to do x y z in this configuration.
When as many SMB look at it, is rely I just want 99.999% business up, screw if the IT guy has to work all night to fix it so long as it doesn't effect normal business hours.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller HA as I've constantly been told in the SMB space is completely unachievable. Because it includes things like redundant Internet, power (for more than just the servers), fail over capabilities etc.
Correct, true HA isn't even a discussion point for SMB that runs their hardware "in house." That's why they go to colocation and hosting. But from the server perspective itself, SA is higher than an SMB can use.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
Your mindset is still in the enterprises space of "to be able to get true HA you need to do x y z in this configuration.
Enterprise has nothing to do with it. HA is a thing, size doesn't matter. SA is the same no matter where you are, at the server perspective. HA is HA. SMBs just don't need HA. Enterprises more often need HA. It's enterprise to actually need it, but what it is doesn't change from place to place.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
When as many SMB look at it, is rely I just want 99.999% business up, screw if the IT guy has to work all night to fix it so long as it doesn't effect normal business hours.
That's fine, but if you want that, it's redundant HVAC, generators and all that stuff again. To get those nines from the whole system is the same because it's a physical thing, the power company doesn't care about the size of your business. The uptime is the same. So you achieve it in the same way.
If you want five nines, you have to do the things that it takes to get HA. Even if you are an SMB.
-
I definitely see what Scott is saying here and what Dustin is saying here. Clearly there appears to be a need for a term of what crazy SMB owners think of as HA, probably at best meaning redundant internet and servers and perhaps power (but often not because if power is out in an SMB, it's likely the whole business is down anyhow).
Will a term like this ever come into existence? Probably not. Why not, because it's the wrong way to go. It's honestly better to educate the SMB owners when possible on their real needs, setting real expectation, etc. Getting them to understand what they need and why they don't need these crazy things they see advertised in the airport.
-
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
I definitely see what Scott is saying here and what Dustin is saying here. Clearly there appears to be a need for a term of what crazy SMB owners think of as HA, probably at best meaning redundant internet and servers and perhaps power (but often not because if power is out in an SMB, it's likely the whole business is down anyhow).
But what they normally want is just "to waste money." Nothing more. No need for a special term.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
I definitely see what Scott is saying here and what Dustin is saying here. Clearly there appears to be a need for a term of what crazy SMB owners think of as HA, probably at best meaning redundant internet and servers and perhaps power (but often not because if power is out in an SMB, it's likely the whole business is down anyhow).
But what they normally want is just "to waste money." Nothing more. No need for a special term.
Do you really see this as a conscious choice or just through their actions?
-
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V replication licensing:
I definitely see what Scott is saying here and what Dustin is saying here. Clearly there appears to be a need for a term of what crazy SMB owners think of as HA, probably at best meaning redundant internet and servers and perhaps power (but often not because if power is out in an SMB, it's likely the whole business is down anyhow).
But what they normally want is just "to waste money." Nothing more. No need for a special term.
Do you really see this as a conscious choice or just through their actions?
Definitely a conscious choice. The conscious choice might be to be "lazy, uninformed and not care what gets done", but that much is conscious. That that results in wasting money is as clear as the nose on their faces. They don't, I feel, normally (but certainly many times) decide to throw money away just to do it, they do it because being lazy and not caring results in that and since they are actively not bothering to care, it's conscious.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of places throw money away to brag. It appears to be a common SMB trait to flaunt the ability to waste money. I see that a lot, too.
