I can't even
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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 agree. That would be the hinge. But a cold file is never an OSE. MS has never waivered on that.
Correct, I agree that cold files are never an OSE.
Which is just what makes sense. MS really isn't weird about their licensing. They do logical things 99% of the time.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
I guess I answered my own point here... then in that case, you'd need a license either by SA disaster recovery benefit, or another license on the replica host.
MS doesn't use the term that way in teh docs we've seen. They always add "for DR" to clarify that only that one use case (not the common one) is covered.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
Replica's are meant to be used should the hypervisor fail, not just the individual VM. In which case SA would cover you as you should've bought SA licenses. . .
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
I guess I answered my own point here... then in that case, you'd need a license either by SA disaster recovery benefit, or another license on the replica host.
But I think that's besides the point. Of course then in that case it would be an OSE for sure.
But this is about an OSE already on HOST1, adn the question of whether or not the VM on the replica server is considered a Warm Backup, which is by microsoft's definition, and in which case is an OSE that needs licensed.
If it is cold, it's cold. If it is warm, it's warm. If you have it cold but want to be able to go warm without intervention, you need to license it as warm. But if it is cold and you don't intend to go warm, you don't need a license as MS never makes a situation where you would.
-
@bigbear said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
Can we create a post regarding the Microsoft Licensing to a Topic so we don't derail this whole thread more? Just a recommendation.
Not at this scale, no we can't.
Anyone see my link and excerpt above from Microsoft?
Yup, we had already used it earlier. It's teh cold means cold, that we keep referring to.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
There is only one reason and one intention to enable Hyper-V Replication, whether through Hyper-V or Veeam Replication... do you know what that one reason is? It's not to have a backup... VM replication is NOT backup. If someone uses Hyper-V replication as backup, then that is the same thing as using RAID as backup.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@wls-itguy said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
So am I to understand that if I have VEEAM set up to replicate I need a license for both the Production and the replicated backup?
No, you never need a license for a replica, only for turning on a replica (which makes it a VM that happens to have been created via replication.)
But isn't that a WARM backup if Veeam is replicating a VM using Veeam Replication feature?
Only if it replicates AND turns it on. But Veeam replicates using other features, too, and definitely does not spin up by default.
Datto does replication too, but spinning up (going warm) is a checkbox taht if you skip, stays cold.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
Can we create a post regarding the Microsoft Licensing to a Topic so we don't derail this whole thread more? Just a recommendation.
Not at this scale, no we can't.
I meant to have a discussion about this on another post, not create a licensing go-to how-to thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
I guess I answered my own point here... then in that case, you'd need a license either by SA disaster recovery benefit, or another license on the replica host.
But I think that's besides the point. Of course then in that case it would be an OSE for sure.
But this is about an OSE already on HOST1, adn the question of whether or not the VM on the replica server is considered a Warm Backup, which is by microsoft's definition, and in which case is an OSE that needs licensed.
If it is cold, it's cold. If it is warm, it's warm. If you have it cold but want to be able to go warm without intervention, you need to license it as warm. But if it is cold and you don't intend to go warm, you don't need a license as MS never makes a situation where you would.
A great example of this is with XO Continuous replication.
You never intend to use second hypervisor, unless your main hypervisor shits the bed. The goal is to have it for only DR purposes.
Not for everyday occurrences.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
There is only one reason and one intention to enable Hyper-V Replication, whether through Hyper-V or Veeam Replication... do you know what that one reason is? It's not to have a backup... VM replication is NOT backup. If someone uses Hyper-V replication as backup, then that is the same thing as using RAID as backup.
See, this is where it is false. Totally false. There are very real world, very legit reasons to do this NOT to spin it up. And like I said earlier, I proved this to a point that it cannot be questioned because I DO THIS MYSELF and did so before this conversation.
-
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
I guess I answered my own point here... then in that case, you'd need a license either by SA disaster recovery benefit, or another license on the replica host.
But I think that's besides the point. Of course then in that case it would be an OSE for sure.
But this is about an OSE already on HOST1, adn the question of whether or not the VM on the replica server is considered a Warm Backup, which is by microsoft's definition, and in which case is an OSE that needs licensed.
If it is cold, it's cold. If it is warm, it's warm. If you have it cold but want to be able to go warm without intervention, you need to license it as warm. But if it is cold and you don't intend to go warm, you don't need a license as MS never makes a situation where you would.
A great example of this is with XO Continuous replication.
You never intend to use second hypervisor, unless your main hypervisor shits the bed. The goal is to have it for only DR purposes.
Not for everyday occurrences.
That's not quite the same, unless you disable HA.
-
@dbeato said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
Can we create a post regarding the Microsoft Licensing to a Topic so we don't derail this whole thread more? Just a recommendation.
Not at this scale, no we can't.
I meant to have a discussion about this on another post, not create a licensing go-to how-to thing.
My point was we can't move this one over.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
Can we create a post regarding the Microsoft Licensing to a Topic so we don't derail this whole thread more? Just a recommendation.
Not at this scale, no we can't.
I meant to have a discussion about this on another post, not create a licensing go-to how-to thing.
My point was we can't move this one over.
Oh yeah! I know that, more about going to another thread then...
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
I guess I answered my own point here... then in that case, you'd need a license either by SA disaster recovery benefit, or another license on the replica host.
But I think that's besides the point. Of course then in that case it would be an OSE for sure.
But this is about an OSE already on HOST1, adn the question of whether or not the VM on the replica server is considered a Warm Backup, which is by microsoft's definition, and in which case is an OSE that needs licensed.
If it is cold, it's cold. If it is warm, it's warm. If you have it cold but want to be able to go warm without intervention, you need to license it as warm. But if it is cold and you don't intend to go warm, you don't need a license as MS never makes a situation where you would.
A great example of this is with XO Continuous replication.
You never intend to use second hypervisor, unless your main hypervisor shits the bed. The goal is to have it for only DR purposes.
Not for everyday occurrences.
That's not quite the same, unless you disable HA.
No no, Continuous Replication just copies the VM from one host to the other. Never does it automatically power on. Nothing with the configuration automatically powers up the backed up VM on the secondary host.
So it is a cold backup. 100% through and through.
You can rapidly start the backed up VM on the remote host and then require licensing at that point.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
There is only one reason and one intention to enable Hyper-V Replication, whether through Hyper-V or Veeam Replication...
This is the crux of the issue. If you believe that you can determine that a technical mechanism only has one use case ever and it is the one that you'd want to use it for, of course it is going to make this really confusing.
But it is so incredible wrong. That's why I pointed out the gun scenario. You are assuming that everyone that tries to buy a gun should be arrested for the murder they obviously intend to commit - because tehre is only one reason to buy a gun, right?
Remember....
- Mechanisms that people SELL as replication like Hyper-V and Veeam Replication products, are often used for backups, regardless of what you personally consider to be their purpose.
- Mechanisms that go far beyond these, like Starwind Network RAID and DRBD are sometimes used for this purpose too, and they are WAY more intense than these.
- Mechanisms labeled as backup tools typically use replication under the hood and clearly aren't intended to be used the way you expect.
We know, without question, that the assumption that replica implies intent is wrong. It cannot be true, it's not possible or reasonable. That's why I was saying... 90% or more of all replication doesn't have even the intent of going warm or hot, which you believe is 100% of cases. It's not even the likely case. It's a real case, but it's not the common one.
-
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
I guess I answered my own point here... then in that case, you'd need a license either by SA disaster recovery benefit, or another license on the replica host.
But I think that's besides the point. Of course then in that case it would be an OSE for sure.
But this is about an OSE already on HOST1, adn the question of whether or not the VM on the replica server is considered a Warm Backup, which is by microsoft's definition, and in which case is an OSE that needs licensed.
If it is cold, it's cold. If it is warm, it's warm. If you have it cold but want to be able to go warm without intervention, you need to license it as warm. But if it is cold and you don't intend to go warm, you don't need a license as MS never makes a situation where you would.
A great example of this is with XO Continuous replication.
You never intend to use second hypervisor, unless your main hypervisor shits the bed. The goal is to have it for only DR purposes.
Not for everyday occurrences.
That's not quite the same, unless you disable HA.
No no, Continuous Replication just copies the VM from one host to the other. Never does it automatically power on. Nothing with the configuration automatically powers up the backed up VM on the secondary host.
So it is a cold backup. 100% through and through.
You can rapidly start the backed up VM on the remote host and then require licensing at that point.
Oh okay, then it totally applies in that case. 100% replication for the purpose of backup.
-
How much people don't know what a computer is blows my mind. How is Raspberry Pi so effing confusing? It's SO simple!!
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2095431-ide-or-emulator-for-raspberry-pi
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
There is only one reason and one intention to enable Hyper-V Replication, whether through Hyper-V or Veeam Replication... do you know what that one reason is? It's not to have a backup... VM replication is NOT backup. If someone uses Hyper-V replication as backup, then that is the same thing as using RAID as backup.
See, this is where it is false. Totally false. There are very real world, very legit reasons to do this NOT to spin it up. And like I said earlier, I proved this to a point that it cannot be questioned because I DO THIS MYSELF and did so before this conversation.
Hyper-V Replication is the same thing as doing a backup. A snapshot of the VM is taken, then the VMs disk is copied to the replica server. Then the snapshot is merged back into the VMs disk and it runs from there again.
So now you have a "cold" backup of your VM on the replica server. But now it happens again, potentially every 30 seconds.
It seems to me like a cold backup is being done of your VM every 30 seconds (in that case), and the cold backup is "attached" to Hyper-V in that you can easily fail the main VM over to it and start it.
But technically, you can do that with any "image", spin it up on any hardware.
If you spin it up on something, it will need to be licensed... whether by SA DR, or via another license on the server you spin it up on.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@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.
https://i.imgur.com/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.
Right, and not just for their own hardware, but licensed for any hardware that they COULD be restored to. Once you breach the "could be used" barrier, it's a slippery slope. Because what about hardware that's running, but not the restore target? What about cold hardware that could be plugged in. What about hardware you've not bought yet, but could? Where do you draw the line once it is about theoretical capability only?
That's a great point.
But when you "Replicate a VM" as in what MS referrs to by VM replication, you do have an intent of using that replica as a running machine, should the original server fail.
No, this is incorrect and I proved it beyond any possibility of contradiction. That's NOT a given or even assumed intent of a replica. You could be, but it cannot be assumed and is NOT the most likely case. It's a common case, but WAY under 50% of the time. Maybe 10%, but only maybe.
Nearly all replicas are NOT intended to be used that way.
There is only one reason and one intention to enable Hyper-V Replication, whether through Hyper-V or Veeam Replication...
This is the crux of the issue. If you believe that you can determine that a technical mechanism only has one use case ever and it is the one that you'd want to use it for, of course it is going to make this really confusing.
But it is so incredible wrong. That's why I pointed out the gun scenario. You are assuming that everyone that tries to buy a gun should be arrested for the murder they obviously intend to commit - because tehre is only one reason to buy a gun, right?
Remember....
- Mechanisms that people SELL as replication like Hyper-V and Veeam Replication products, are often used for backups, regardless of what you personally consider to be their purpose.
- Mechanisms that go far beyond these, like Starwind Network RAID and DRBD are sometimes used for this purpose too, and they are WAY more intense than these.
- Mechanisms labeled as backup tools typically use replication under the hood and clearly aren't intended to be used the way you expect.
We know, without question, that the assumption that replica implies intent is wrong. It cannot be true, it's not possible or reasonable. That's why I was saying... 90% or more of all replication doesn't have even the intent of going warm or hot, which you believe is 100% of cases. It's not even the likely case. It's a real case, but it's not the common one.
Yeah I take that back. Just yesterday I used Hyper-V Replication for a different reason. Wasn't thinking.
