Installing FS on a DC
-
Putting FS functions on a DC is not a big deal. Ideal, no, but not a big deal. If you have the VM licensing to do them separate, keep them separate. If you don't, merge them.
-
Definitely not an ideal approach, but it is certainly do-able.
Is the concern the cost of licensing and CALs, if so has the client out-right denied using linux? Are you capable to support a linux installation?
There are many reasons to not do this, and a few of them are simply better options rather than best practice.
-
SBS200x was an all in one. Not ideal or a good idea, but it worked .. Adding a FS would add very little stress to the DC.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
Is the concern the cost of licensing and CALs...
No cost to CALs, all CAL cost already exists from the first Windows server.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
Is the concern the cost of licensing and CALs...
No cost to CALs, all CAL cost already exists from the first Windows server.
CALs are per server, so if he created a separate server to run a FS only, he would need double the CALs.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
Is the concern the cost of licensing and CALs...
No cost to CALs, all CAL cost already exists from the first Windows server.
CALs are per server, so if he created a separate server to run a FS only, he would need double the CALs.
CALs are NOT per server. That is completely wrong. One Windows Server CAL per user, regardless of how many servers you have. It has always been this way and is implied in the name. All vendors follow this convention.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
Is the concern the cost of licensing and CALs...
No cost to CALs, all CAL cost already exists from the first Windows server.
CALs are per server, so if he created a separate server to run a FS only, he would need double the CALs.
CALs are NOT per server. That is completely wrong. One Windows Server CAL per user, regardless of how many servers you have. It has always been this way and is implied in the name. All vendors follow this convention.
Your statement here makes me want to question everything I've read on CALs. . .
As I've understood it, the more Windows Workloads you have, the more CALs you need to be appropriately licensed for that specific workload.
IE
File-Server - need cals for 100 people
Domain Control - Need cals for 100 people
etcMeaning you'd need 200 CALs. . .
Now I'm going to have to find information that either proves I'm wrong and have misunderstood this as you're stating. .
IE regardless of how many windows servers you're running, you only need enough CALs in your organization to cover the entire user base or devices once.
Not per server. . .
-
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
Is the concern the cost of licensing and CALs...
No cost to CALs, all CAL cost already exists from the first Windows server.
CALs are per server, so if he created a separate server to run a FS only, he would need double the CALs.
CALs are NOT per server. That is completely wrong. One Windows Server CAL per user, regardless of how many servers you have. It has always been this way and is implied in the name. All vendors follow this convention.
Your statement here makes me want to question everything I've read on CALs. . .
As I've understood it, the more Windows Workloads you have, the more CALs you need to be appropriately licensed for that specific workload.
IE
File-Server - need cals for 100 people
Domain Control - Need cals for 100 peopleIgnoring "per device CALs" as an option. The math works like this.
U = Number of Users
S = Number of Windows ServersNumber of CALs needed in any environment equals U where S > 0.
It's that simple. Count up your users, that's your number of CALs if you use Windows Servers. There's nothing more to it. Everything you've ever seen should agree with this. If it wasn't like this, the cost of Windows would be impossibly high.
If you have 1 Server, 100 Users, you need 100 CALs.
If you have 10 Servers, 10 Users, you need 10 CALs.
If you have 100 Servers, 1 User, you need 1 CAL.
If you have 1,000 Servers, 10 Users, you need 10 CALs.And so forth. The server count is a red herring. Only users are counted for CALs. Only servers are counted for Server licenses.
That's the purpose for the two things being separate. If you needed one CAL per user per server then there would be no point to the server licensing as that would be overlapping and unnecessarily complex. MS would simplify things for themselves and for customers by rolling everything into a single license. They keep them separate so that they can balance the licensing.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
IE regardless of how many windows servers you're running, you only need enough CALs in your organization to cover the entire user base or devices once.
Not per server. . .
Correct
-
-
So this makes sense, and it might just be a "me issue". But every workload I have ever seen (IME) has been on different Microsoft Server versions.
IE you need CALs for that version of Windows Server. . . and thus you would need tons of CALs.
Grr time to investigate.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Installing FS on a DC:
So this makes sense, and it might just be a "me issue". But every workload I have ever seen (IME) has been on different Microsoft Server versions.
IE you need CALs for that version of Windows Server. . . and thus you would need tons of CALs.
Grr time to investigate.
You don't, BUT you might end up with loads of CALs. All CALs are backwards compatible, you only need everyone to be licensed for the latest version of Windows. So if you have Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 R2, and 2016 in your environment, and say ten of each server, and you have 20 users, you need 20 Windows Server 2016 CALs. That's all.
But, chances are, along the way someone acquired 2003 CALs, 2008 CALs, 2012 CALs, etc. because they needed them back at the time. Today, you only need the latest 2016 CALs, but you likely have the old ones lying around from historic usage.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
All CALs are backwards compatible, you only need everyone to be licensed for the latest version of Windows. So if you have Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 R2, and 2016 in your environment, and say ten of each server, and you have 20 users, you need 20 Windows Server 2016 CALs. That's all.
And they only actually sell the latest version CALs. Running 2008R2 and need more CALs? Then they sell you 2016 CALs.
-
@bnrstnr said in Installing FS on a DC:
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
All CALs are backwards compatible, you only need everyone to be licensed for the latest version of Windows. So if you have Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012 R2, and 2016 in your environment, and say ten of each server, and you have 20 users, you need 20 Windows Server 2016 CALs. That's all.
And they only actually sell the latest version CALs. Running 2008R2 and need more CALs? Then they sell you 2016 CALs.
That's true, only the current CALs are normally available for sale at all.
-
Not to beat a dead horse however, the naming of CAL is a bit misleading. Client Access Licensing on it's face would lead one to believe that for every server that a client accesses a license is needed. And in reality it is exactly the opposite in that the client needs a single license to access anything on the domain.
-
@wls-itguy said in Installing FS on a DC:
Not to beat a dead horse however, the naming of CAL is a bit misleading. Client Access Licensing on it's face would lead one to believe that for every server that a client accesses a license is needed. And in reality it is exactly the opposite in that the client needs a single license to access anything on the domain.
Does it? Nothing in the name implies server. It's a license for Clients to Access, the only "per" thing mentioned is the client.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@wls-itguy said in Installing FS on a DC:
Not to beat a dead horse however, the naming of CAL is a bit misleading. Client Access Licensing on it's face would lead one to believe that for every server that a client accesses a license is needed. And in reality it is exactly the opposite in that the client needs a single license to access anything on the domain.
Does it? Nothing in the name implies server. It's a license for Clients to Access, the only "per" thing mentioned is the client.
True. But do I need a CAL on my home network? No. Why? because I don't have a multitude of servers that I need access to.
-
@wls-itguy said in Installing FS on a DC:
@scottalanmiller said in Installing FS on a DC:
@wls-itguy said in Installing FS on a DC:
Not to beat a dead horse however, the naming of CAL is a bit misleading. Client Access Licensing on it's face would lead one to believe that for every server that a client accesses a license is needed. And in reality it is exactly the opposite in that the client needs a single license to access anything on the domain.
Does it? Nothing in the name implies server. It's a license for Clients to Access, the only "per" thing mentioned is the client.
True. But do I need a CAL on my home network? No. Why? because I don't have a multitude of servers that I need access to.
You do if you have any, though. That's the "access" part of the license. Clients exist where there is a server, without the server, there is no client. So seems logical enough that no CAL is needed where there is no client.
-
Another way to think of it...
Clients are named, servers are not. This "client" has a "client access license". The resource to access is never named or listed or mentioned. It must exist, or there is no client. But the naming convention really does lead towards "per client" and aware from "per server."
A client has an access license. We'd call it a Server Access License if it was the other way around.
-
As mentioned before, its not a big deal to have both of those roles on the same server. I have them on one server on my current environment. I am wanting to separate them, but the company uses the FS role too much for me to be able to bring it down long enough for a couple of reboots. I could probably do it during a weekend, but just have to do it.
