VeeamOn 2017
-
In the "Using Microsoft ReFS and Storage Spaces Direct as a Backup Target for Veeam" session now.
-
@travisdh1 said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
Finished lunch and am now sitting in a session room to get some quiet time before the session itself begins. It's the Linux Agent Scripting session.
Sounds like Veem will be our next backup solution here. Gonna have to sit down and watch some of these sessions sometime... time, ask me for anything but time.
You will not regret that decision.
-
@travisdh1 said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
Finished lunch and am now sitting in a session room to get some quiet time before the session itself begins. It's the Linux Agent Scripting session.
Sounds like Veem will be our next backup solution here. Gonna have to sit down and watch some of these sessions sometime... time, ask me for anything but time.
Awesome
-
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
-
Okay, in his defense, he literally just said "I'm a Microsoft fanboi".
-
You know Windows 2016 isn't very impressive when everyone is raving about software RAID as it no one has ever heard of it before.
-
MVPs claim that Microsoft sees NTFS as old and antiquated and wants everyone to move to ReFS. That's the first that I've heard any of that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
MVPs claim that Microsoft sees NTFS as old and antiquated and wants everyone to move to ReFS. That's the first that I've heard any of that.
Not that specifically but that "class" I was in it was pretty much all ReFS and how it's so awesome...
-
@travisdh1 said in VeeamOn 2017:
@NerdyDad said in VeeamOn 2017:
You would figure that for a tech company conference that they would have all of this other stuff figured out and at top-notch.
Don't get me started on audio equipment. You can go from sound check to opening act and have a cable or mic go bad in that time. I bet @RojoLoco has even more recent stories.
Yup, Murphy's Law applies to audio gear as well. That's why you should have spares (redundancy!).
-
@stacksofplates said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
MVPs claim that Microsoft sees NTFS as old and antiquated and wants everyone to move to ReFS. That's the first that I've heard any of that.
Not that specifically but that "class" I was in it was pretty much all ReFS and how it's so awesome...
They are raving about how this is a 64bit filesystem. Ha ha, we've been on 128bit for 13 years now!!
-
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
Well considering:
- Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
- Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500
Let's do the math:
- 4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
- 2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000
I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.
I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.
-
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
Well considering:
- Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
- Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500
Let's do the math:
- 4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
- 2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000
I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.
I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.
Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.
-
After decades of the MVPs telling us how great NTFS is, suddenly there is a lot of MVP hate on NTFS. Suddenly Windows hasn't been reliable and was slow and all kinds of problems. Um....
-
ReFS is looking good, especially with v3.1, for a lot of things. But the sudden "NTFS is garbage never touch it" thing makes no sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
Well considering:
- Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
- Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500
Let's do the math:
- 4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
- 2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000
I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.
I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.
Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.
Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.
But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.
-
And if you are paying for 12 VMs, that's a datacenter license there anyways. You've basically just bought enough Standard licneses to pay for a DC.
I think this stuff should be considered much earlier than 12. Like half way, to prevent 6k from being wasted. But like you said, only if there's a reasonable chance for a need to climb closer to 12.
Of course it can go the other way around.. spending the extra money on a DC license you'd never need.
-
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
Well considering:
- Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
- Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500
Let's do the math:
- 4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
- 2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000
I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.
I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.
Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.
Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.
But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.
Yeah, but that's not a good argument for investing in something. It's not about guaranteeing that it won't, because you defeat that argument by saying that you can't guarantee that it will (and will within a certain time frame.) Even going to 16 VMs makes sense to use Standard if you get the last batch of them long after the system going into production.
It's all about predictive license investing.
-
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
And if you are paying for 12 VMs, that's a datacenter license there anyways. You've basically just bought enough Standard licneses to pay for a DC.
I think this stuff should be considered much earlier than 12. Like half way, to prevent 6k from being wasted. But like you said, only if there's a reasonable chance for a need to climb closer to 12.
Of course it can go the other way around.. spending the extra money on a DC license you'd never need.
At 12, you'll still save money are raw licenses by going standard. But certainly you are right on that line where it would make sense for all of the other reasons, just ot not manage the licenses.
-
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
Well considering:
- Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
- Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500
Let's do the math:
- 4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
- 2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000
I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.
I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.
Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.
Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.
But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.
Yeah, but that's not a good argument for investing in something. It's not about guaranteeing that it won't, because you defeat that argument by saying that you can't guarantee that it will (and will within a certain time frame.) Even going to 16 VMs makes sense to use Standard if you get the last batch of them long after the system going into production.
It's all about predictive license investing.
Yeah that's true, good point.
In a given real environment it's a lot easier to determine if you should keep investing in Standard licenses than in a hypothetical environment.
-
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:
@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:
OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.
Well considering:
- Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
- Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500
Let's do the math:
- 4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
- 2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000
I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.
I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.
Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.
Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.
But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.
Yeah, but that's not a good argument for investing in something. It's not about guaranteeing that it won't, because you defeat that argument by saying that you can't guarantee that it will (and will within a certain time frame.) Even going to 16 VMs makes sense to use Standard if you get the last batch of them long after the system going into production.
It's all about predictive license investing.
Yeah that's true, good point.
In a given real environment it's a lot easier to determine if you should keep investing in Standard licenses than in a hypothetical environment.
True
