Why Install Hyper-V via Role Rather than Pure Hyper-V
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@Dashrender said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
All of the above and more but done in PowerShell on our KB site.
You appear to be doing a role based install
Install the Hyper-V Role
Install-WindowsFeature Hyper-V,Hyper-V-Tools,Hyper-V-PowerShell -IncludeAllSubFeature -IncludeManagementTools -Restart
Why not pure Hyper-V?
Not sure I understand the question?
Hyper-V Server is set up relatively the same though with some restrictions.
We always deploy using PowerShell whether the Desktop Experience in standalone servers is installed or not.
Get-WindowsFeature *hyper*
^^^ There should be no difference between the two sans GUI for Hyper-V Server of course. It is a role.The question is - why are you installing a full Windows server (which requires a license) and then adding the Hyper-V role? Why not do the license free setup, pure Hyper-V?
Ah, because Windows Server is licensed via the host not the guests.
While that is where the license is attached, it doesn't have any effect on the decision.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Most of our hosts are set up with Windows Server guests and therefore require the license.
I'm not sure what you mean. The guests require the license, but this has nothing to do with how Hyper-V is deployed.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
In my mind, Hyper-V Server is aimed at hosting *NIX/*BSD and virtual desktop infrastructure on Windows Desktop where a server license would be a waste of money.
No, it's definitely not the purpose for it. It's widely considered the "good" way to run pure Windows VMs on Hyper-V, too. It's lighter, faster, more stable, etc. Are there reasons and benefits to the less streamlined approach? Yes. But are they commonly considered to outweigh the benefits of not doing that? Not generally, no.
I have plenty of pure Windows environments, and we never deploy that way because it carries risks, mostly around long term licensing, that we don't want while providing essentially no value. We see customers get screwed with that all the time, but almost never see a benefit. The one benefit generally associated is that it is "easy" in a stand alone (non-MSP, or small MSP) environment with only one server and no management desktops to remotely manage a machine.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
In my mind, Hyper-V Server is aimed at hosting *NIX/*BSD and virtual desktop infrastructure on Windows Desktop where a server license would be a waste of money.
No, it's definitely not the purpose for it. It's widely considered the "good" way to run pure Windows VMs on Hyper-V, too. It's lighter, faster, more stable, etc. Are there reasons and benefits to the less streamlined approach? Yes. But are they commonly considered to outweigh the benefits of not doing that? Not generally, no.
I have plenty of pure Windows environments, and we never deploy that way because it carries risks, mostly around long term licensing, that we don't want while providing essentially no value. We see customers get screwed with that all the time, but almost never see a benefit. The one benefit generally associated is that it is "easy" in a stand alone (non-MSP, or small MSP) environment with only one server and no management desktops to remotely manage a machine.
When we're licensed for Windows Server we install Windows Server whether Standard or Datacenter on the host. That has been our methodology since the Longhorn days. We have no plans to change that.
Since the inclusion of .NET and other more desktop oriented "technologies" on Server Core, and thus Hyper-V Server 2019 (HVS), the reboot requirement for patching has basically saddled up to the Desktop Experience (Full GUI).
The surface area for vulnerabilities is about the same for Server Core and HVS. So, no real benefit there.
As far as stability goes, we have had both Server Core and Desktop Experience servers run for an exceedingly long period of time without the need to reboot with an edge to Server Core.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
When we're licensed for Windows Server we install Windows Server whether Standard or Datacenter on the host. That has been our methodology since the Longhorn days. We have no plans to change that.
Right, but that's totally a policy that you have, and doesn't really follow industry or technical standards or reasons. It's okay, it works. But it is important to understand why you are doing it - tradition it sounds like. Since moving to virtualization, there are many things we change simply because what we do has changed.
For example, what you describe as your process isn't the same since the Longhorn time. How you approach it might not have changed, but adding Hyper-V has changed what is actually happening. That you haven't adapted your processes to leverage the benefits now offered is a different matter. You may feel that the benefits aren't valuable enough to change the process, but that's purely a decision not to leverage those changes and not that things have not changed.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Since the inclusion of .NET and other more desktop oriented "technologies" on Server Core, and thus Hyper-V Server 2019 (HVS),
Server Core is not the same as Hyper-V Server's control VM. Similar, but Hyper-V using a still lighter OS based on Windows, not Windows proper.
-
@PhlipElder By far the biggest reason that most of us avoid that installation method is the one that you are avoiding mentioning - licensing. What the licensing is for Hyper-V and Windows today isn't relevant to the concern, it is how it will be licensed indefinitely into the future. This is what customers often don't understand and overlook thinking that because they already paid for Windows that they should "just use it", and then routinely get burned down the road by being unable to upgrade Hyper-V without paying for it, because they encumbered it out of habit and no one warned them that this risk would almost certainly catch them when they didn't want to spend more money to upgrade something that is otherwise free.
By deploying Hyper-V in the lighter mode, we simply protect the customer from an unnecessary encumbrance, once that we've found to be the most significant factor affecting Hyper-V decision making in the real world.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder By far the biggest reason that most of us avoid that installation method is the one that you are avoiding mentioning - licensing. What the licensing is for Hyper-V and Windows today isn't relevant to the concern, it is how it will be licensed indefinitely into the future. This is what customers often don't understand and overlook thinking that because they already paid for Windows that they should "just use it", and then routinely get burned down the road by being unable to upgrade Hyper-V without paying for it, because they encumbered it out of habit and no one warned them that this risk would almost certainly catch them when they didn't want to spend more money to upgrade something that is otherwise free.
By deploying Hyper-V in the lighter mode, we simply protect the customer from an unnecessary encumbrance, once that we've found to be the most significant factor affecting Hyper-V decision making in the real world.
Moot point for us as all of our clients run either Software Assurance or we are supplying the licenses via SPLA as we manage their infrastructure.
I don't know what a "control VM" is?
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
I don't know what a "control VM" is?
That's what we are discussing - how the VM that controls Hyper-V is managed. Dom0 in Xen terms. Parent partition. Lots of names for it. But it is a VM that runs on top of Hyper-V and provides the interfaces to the outside world on behalf of Hyper-V that has no interface on its own, and provides control and management of Hyper-V.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Moot point for us as all of our clients run either Software Assurance or we are supplying the licenses via SPLA as we manage their infrastructure.
If you can truly control that, we find that clients tend to like to drop SA or avoid it over time. They might start with it, but it only takes dropping it once to cause an issue. And if Hyper-V is the "one reason" why they would need it, they then see Hyper-V as a problem. It's just easier and more consistent to avoid the problem and not have to have the more complex decision structure.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Moot point for us as all of our clients run either Software Assurance or we are supplying the licenses via SPLA as we manage their infrastructure.
If you can truly control that, we find that clients tend to like to drop SA or avoid it over time. They might start with it, but it only takes dropping it once to cause an issue. And if Hyper-V is the "one reason" why they would need it, they then see Hyper-V as a problem. It's just easier and more consistent to avoid the problem and not have to have the more complex decision structure.
Our longest standing client is spanning two decades. We have not had any issue with software licensing with our clients. None. Nadda. Zippo.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Moot point for us as all of our clients run either Software Assurance or we are supplying the licenses via SPLA as we manage their infrastructure.
If you can truly control that, we find that clients tend to like to drop SA or avoid it over time. They might start with it, but it only takes dropping it once to cause an issue. And if Hyper-V is the "one reason" why they would need it, they then see Hyper-V as a problem. It's just easier and more consistent to avoid the problem and not have to have the more complex decision structure.
Our longest standing client is spanning two decades. We have not had any issue with software licensing with our clients. None. Nadda. Zippo.
You are in a miraculous situation. For most everyone, clients don't have 100% software assurance (or purchase updates immediately on release every time.) It is not in any way normal to have 100% always current licensed customers. Literally have never heard of any MSP claim that level of saturation before, it is that rare.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Moot point for us as all of our clients run either Software Assurance or we are supplying the licenses via SPLA as we manage their infrastructure.
If you can truly control that, we find that clients tend to like to drop SA or avoid it over time. They might start with it, but it only takes dropping it once to cause an issue. And if Hyper-V is the "one reason" why they would need it, they then see Hyper-V as a problem. It's just easier and more consistent to avoid the problem and not have to have the more complex decision structure.
Our longest standing client is spanning two decades. We have not had any issue with software licensing with our clients. None. Nadda. Zippo.
You are in a miraculous situation. For most everyone, clients don't have 100% software assurance. It is not in any way normal to have 100% always current licensed customers. Literally have never heard of any MSP claim that level of saturation before, it is that rare.
We have a very simple policy: Not licensed correctly? Either get there with a commitment and we will help them get there or we walk. Period.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
We have a very simple policy: Not licensed correctly? Either get there with a commitment and we will help them get there or we walk. Period.
You would drop clients simply because they don't see the price of being always at the latest version as being a good business decision for them? Even when they are correct? Because, while it is almost always good, it isn't always.
Being "licensed correctly" and "always on the latest" aren't the same concept.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Moot point for us as all of our clients run either Software Assurance or we are supplying the licenses via SPLA as we manage their infrastructure.
If you can truly control that, we find that clients tend to like to drop SA or avoid it over time. They might start with it, but it only takes dropping it once to cause an issue. And if Hyper-V is the "one reason" why they would need it, they then see Hyper-V as a problem. It's just easier and more consistent to avoid the problem and not have to have the more complex decision structure.
Our longest standing client is spanning two decades. We have not had any issue with software licensing with our clients. None. Nadda. Zippo.
You are in a miraculous situation. For most everyone, clients don't have 100% software assurance (or purchase updates immediately on release every time.) It is not in any way normal to have 100% always current licensed customers. Literally have never heard of any MSP claim that level of saturation before, it is that rare.
We operate our business 100% above board and expect any company/client/customer we work with to operate the same way.
We will never work with a company that sees software as something they can pilfer at will.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
We operate our business 100% above board and expect any company/client/customer we work with to operate the same way.
We will never work with a company that sees software as something they can pilfer at will.Same here, but that's unrelated to the discussion we are having of always being at the latest possible version.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
We have a very simple policy: Not licensed correctly? Either get there with a commitment and we will help them get there or we walk. Period.
You would drop clients simply because they don't see the price of being always at the latest version as being a good business decision for them? Even when they are correct? Because, while it is almost always good, it isn't always.
Being "licensed correctly" and "always on the latest" aren't the same concept.
Huh?
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
We have a very simple policy: Not licensed correctly? Either get there with a commitment and we will help them get there or we walk. Period.
You would drop clients simply because they don't see the price of being always at the latest version as being a good business decision for them? Even when they are correct? Because, while it is almost always good, it isn't always.
Being "licensed correctly" and "always on the latest" aren't the same concept.
Huh?
We are discussing how your clients never get stuck on an older version of Windows. You can get, for example, 2012 R2 licensing and run that for many, many years (and still be supported, even) and be completely licensed, but not current.
-
That's the most common scenario we see, clients who are stuck on 2012R2. Fully licensed, but not current. And someone tied their Hyper-V to that license when they shouldn't have, and now they've gone years without being able to update Hyper-V purely because of how it was deployed, even though Hyper-V itself is free.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
We have a very simple policy: Not licensed correctly? Either get there with a commitment and we will help them get there or we walk. Period.
You would drop clients simply because they don't see the price of being always at the latest version as being a good business decision for them? Even when they are correct? Because, while it is almost always good, it isn't always.
Being "licensed correctly" and "always on the latest" aren't the same concept.
Huh?
We are discussing how your clients never get stuck on an older version of Windows. You can get, for example, 2012 R2 licensing and run that for many, many years (and still be supported, even) and be completely licensed, but not current.
Where did I say that?
Our clients run Software Assurance for both the ability to be flexible for an upgrade but there are other benefits to SA beyond that. So, I don't get that point?
I said "correctly". That has nothing to do with SA and keeping current.
