I can't even


  • Service Provider

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    I'm saying that yes, the other end does require licensing, and that I can't find anythign anywhere that says otherwise.

    This is like proving a negative.

    Exactly. There's no reason for MS to have made a document to state this isn't true, as there is nothing suggesting that such a thing exists.



  • @scottalanmiller said in I can't even:

    So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...

    0_1512603131165_DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20171206173143.png

    Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.

    Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.

    The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.

    So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.

    Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.


  • Service Provider

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @scottalanmiller said in I can't even:

    So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...

    0_1512603131165_DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20171206173143.png

    Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.

    Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.

    The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.

    So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.

    Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.

    Okay, but then what's there to discuss? The SA license only applies in scenarios that we haven't been discussing, right?



  • @scottalanmiller said in I can't even:

    There is no DR until that time, there is no intent until that time, there is no reason to have spent money on a license until that time.

    I think this is where a lot of people disagree with you - using Hyper-V replication to replicate a VM to another Hyper-V host, instead of using backup software to backup to dumb storage, to most in implying intent to spin up the replica in case of DR.



  • @scottalanmiller said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @scottalanmiller said in I can't even:

    So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...

    0_1512603131165_DeepinScreenshot_select-area_20171206173143.png

    Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.

    Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.

    The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.

    So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.

    Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.

    Okay, but then what's there to discuss? The SA license only applies in scenarios that we haven't been discussing, right?

    Right.

    Here's the part where there is no documentation specific to the Hyper-V Replication:

    No Software Assurance, no disaster recovery, etc. etc... let's leave that out of the equation, as it provides no value in this case.

    Someone simply has HV01 and HV02. Both are running Hyper-V Server 2016. HV01 has VM1 under a WS2016 standard license. HV02 has nothing but Hyper-V Server 2016.

    Someone is using Hyper-V Replication to replicate VM1 to HV02.

    First some MS provided definitions:

    Operating System Environment (OSE) means all or part of an operating system Instance, or all or part of a virtual (or otherwise emulated) operating system Instance which enables separate machine identity (primary computer name or similar unique identifier) or separate administrative rights, and instances of applications, if any, configured to run on the operating system Instance or parts identified above. A physical hardware system can have one Physical OSE and/or one or more Virtual OSEs.

    Virtual OSE means an OSE that is configured to run on a virtual hardware system.

    Instance means an image of software that is created by executing the software’s setup or install procedure or by duplicating an existing Instance.

    MS clearly states that all OSEs must be licensed. So the question then becomes this:

    Is VM1 an OSE?

    • Yes.

    Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?

    • Yes.

    Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?

    • Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.

    Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 when it's running, and VM1 on HV01 is off?

    • Yes.

    There are a lot of "or"s in their definitions, which help to define them. After an "or", you can take the rest of it out, but must leave things before and after the "and"s.



  • @tim_g said in I can't even:

    Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?

    • Yes.

    Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?

    • Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.

    If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.



  • @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?

    • Yes.

    Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?

    • Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.

    If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.

    Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?

    I assume yes.

    I don't see any mention of the word "running".

    Unless that is said somewhere else.



  • Someone call Bill Gates and get a damed answer.



  • This whole discussion is part of what fueled my interest in Linux.



  • @eddiejennings said in I can't even:

    This whole discussion is part of what fueled my interest in Linux.

    Yeah, no question about replicating Linux VMs with Hyper-V.


  • Service Provider

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    @scottalanmiller please provide the link to your source document for 2016 as well as the page number you are referencing. Otherwise this is all speculation on your part. I mean I believe you found the correct document and it is a real quote, but it needs to verifiable.



  • @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...



  • @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    . Otherwise this is all speculation on your part. I mean I believe you found the correct document and it is a real quote, but it

    That's just it - you can't find documentation to his point, that's sorta like proving a negative - instead one needs to find documentation saying that he's wrong. Which Scott is claiming he can't find.



  • @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    I do agree with the point you are trying to make, but this assumes you need a license (of any kinda, be it SA or a full license) - Scott is claiming that the currently found documentation doesn't support this requirement.



  • @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?

    • Yes.

    Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?

    • Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.

    If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.

    Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?

    I assume yes.

    I don't see any mention of the word "running".

    Unless that is said somewhere else.

    Interesting - and I would say - nope... but to have installed it in the first place, you would either have to have been in a trial period, or have a license. Assuming you were in a trial period, and you power it off, yet never delete it, I'd say no you don't need a license. If you had a license when you built it, then powered it off.. I'd say you can keep the VM and sell the license (if that's possible) and have no worries. Though the moment you power that VM backup up - you need a license.



  • @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?

    • Yes.

    Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?

    • Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.

    If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.

    Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?

    I assume yes.

    I don't see any mention of the word "running".

    Unless that is said somewhere else.

    Interesting - and I would say - nope... but to have installed it in the first place, you would either have to have been in a trial period, or have a license. Assuming you were in a trial period, and you power it off, yet never delete it, I'd say no you don't need a license. If you had a license when you built it, then powered it off.. I'd say you can keep the VM and sell the license (if that's possible) and have no worries. Though the moment you power that VM backup up - you need a license.

    Well licenses are non-transferable. So you could discard the licensing as it's past end of life or whatever and only keep the VM around for archival purposes. But ever powering on that system again would mean you're required to have a license for it.

    So don't keep things around forever, or upgrade as it's required.



  • This whole thread makes my damned head hurt.


  • Service Provider

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.



  • @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.



  • @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.



  • @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.



  • @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.

    gi0hPcy.png

    I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.



  • @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.

    gi0hPcy.png

    I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.

    Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.



  • @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.

    gi0hPcy.png

    I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.

    Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.

    and scott is calling a replica the same as a backup, as long as you never turn it on.



  • @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    If that is true, then you need a license to replicate Linux VMs as well... and that can't be right. Because I'm using Hyper-V Server 2016 to replicate Linux VMs. There's no way I'm going to buy a Windows license to cover a Linux VM.



  • @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.

    gi0hPcy.png

    I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.

    Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.

    and scott is calling a replica the same as a backup, as long as you never turn it on.

    Is a license needed for warm backups? That's what Microsoft considers data "replication"... but where I seen that was not in the context of virtualization or Hyper-V.



  • @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.

    gi0hPcy.png

    I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.

    Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.

    and scott is calling a replica the same as a backup, as long as you never turn it on.

    I think it comes down to the questions I asked here: https://mangolassi.it/post/361143

    The only thing that matters is whether or not it's considered an OSE, which OSEs needing licensed is documented clearly all over the place on Microsoft documentation.



  • I should print the last day or so of this thread, and when presented with the question of "What's the cost of Winodws?" provide the printout.



  • @eddiejennings said in I can't even:

    I should print the last day or so of this thread, and when presented with the question of "What's the cost of Winodws?" provide the printout.

    Capital idea!



  • @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @dashrender said in I can't even:

    @coliver said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @tim_g said in I can't even:

    @jaredbusch said in I can't even:

    @Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.

    What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.

    That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...

    It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.

    @Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.

    Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.

    Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.

    gi0hPcy.png

    I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.

    Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.

    and scott is calling a replica the same as a backup, as long as you never turn it on.

    I think it comes down to the questions I asked here: https://mangolassi.it/post/361143

    The only thing that matters is whether or not it's considered an OSE, which OSEs needing licensed is documented clearly all over the place on Microsoft documentation.

    If that's true, then every backup that can be instantly turn on is an OSE, and they all need to be licensed as well - and I just don't think that's right. i.e. unitrends appliances would need licenses.



Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.