Remote Desktop Services - How To Get Started?
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
A virtualized server does not have a VDI license need for a single user to use. That licensing limitation has always been a desktop-only limitation.
To use RDP/RDS for administration, I'd completely agree.
-
@Dashrender said:
To use RDP/RDS for administration, I'd completely agree.
Don't use RDP/RDS. We are only discussing RDP. Mixing the two together is making this a lot more confusing as clearly any use of RDS requires a CAL. But the discussion is not about RDS at all.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
From TechNet from March, 2014:
4 – Do I need an RDS CAL?
There are two basic scenarios which trigger the requirement for an RDS CAL.
Your users or devices directly or indirectly access any of the RDS product functionality, and/or
Your users of devices directly or indirectly interact with the graphical user interface of the server software using >RDS functionality or other third party technology (e.g. Citrix, GraphOn, 2X to name a few)If you meet either (or both) of the points described above – an RDS CAL is required. It is also worth pointing out that RDS CALs are required in a VDI deployment when any of the RDS components are used to support it (e.g. Remote Desktop Web Access, Remote Desktop Gateway, Remote Desktop Connection Broker, Remote Desktop Session Host, or the Remote Desktop Virtualization Host.
This part, because you are accessing a GUI, tells me you do need RDS.
-
@Dashrender said:
4 – Do I need an RDS CAL?
There are two basic scenarios which trigger the requirement for an RDS CAL.
Your users or devices directly or indirectly access any of the RDS product functionality, and/or
Your users of devices directly or indirectly interact with the graphical user interface of the server software using >RDS functionality or other third party technology (e.g. Citrix, GraphOn, 2X to name a few)This part, because you are accessing a GUI, tells me you do need RDS.
Which part? Both parts talk about using RDS or an RDS replacement. How does using RDP fall into either of the two potential categories?
-
Since no RDS is in play, why would either condition be triggered? RDS would not even be installed, so it isn't like it could be used accidentally and no third party component would necessarily be installed (none needed, anyway.)
-
Your users of devices directly or indirectly interact with the graphical user interface of the server software using >RDS functionality or other third party technology (e.g. Citrix, GraphOn, 2X to name a few)
You're clearly using RDS functionality (RDP uses RDS's functions) to give a GUI to the end user to perform non administrative tasks.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're clearly using RDS functionality (RDP uses RDS's functions) to give a GUI to the end user to perform non administrative tasks.
That would be the confusion. RDP does not use RDS functions. RDS uses the RDP protocol. RDS is not even installed. You are assuming that RDS is a basic function of all Windows systems, even desktops. But it is not. It is an add-on role that is rarely deployed. RDP is base functionality, not RDS.
RDP is the underlying component, RDS is the extensions built on top.
-
OK I'll give you that one - but I do disagree that the 'first session can be used for anything you want' arguement. I believe this to be true when installed directly on hardware, but don't think it would be true the moment you virtualized it.
But I could be wrong.
-
@Dashrender said:
OK I'll give you that one - but I do disagree that the 'first session can be used for anything you want' arguement. I believe this to be true when installed directly on hardware, but don't think it would be true the moment you virtualized it.
But I could be wrong.
Where have you seen any mention of virtual, though? In desktops, yes, it is always stated that the workstation licensing carries that one major difference. But that it is a difference and unique to workstations (meaning: non-servers) should imply that the limitation does not exist on servers. And as no mention of that limitation ever comes up, it appears to not exist.
Server CALs are needed, of course, But that has always been the case. Even if you are working on a local desktop and just need to sign into AD you need a Server CAL.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
Server CALs are needed, of course, But that has always been the case. Even if you are working on a local desktop and just need to sign into AD you need a Server CAL.
If you're directly accessing the server (though virtualized) then why would you need a server CAL for that one connection?
This whole thing boils down to - can you legally install Windows 2012 R2 on a VM host and use that OS as a desktop for everyone instead of using Windows 7 Pro, and skip paying for the VDI? If yes, well then there you go.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you're directly accessing the server (though virtualized) then why would you need a server CAL for that one connection?
Because you have always needed a Server CAL for any use of any Windows Server product (except special cases like when using as an anonymous web server and even then it is a tough area to determine, internal users never count for example) except for special administration cases where nothing but administration is being done.
Simple rule is - if a user uses server resources, they need a Server CAL. Number of connections was never a determining factor in that. There are a few exceptions when one does not need a Server CAL, but for the most part, they always do.
-
@Dashrender said:
This whole thing boils down to - can you legally install Windows 2012 R2 on a VM host and use that OS as a desktop for everyone instead of using Windows 7 Pro, and skip paying for the VDI? If yes, well then there you go.
That's what Microsoft said that you could do. But Server licenses are so much more expensive, that very few people decide to spend their money that way. But you certainly can do so.
And nothing that we came across in this discussion suggested otherwise, that I could see.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
@Dashrender said:
If you're directly accessing the server (though virtualized) then why would you need a server CAL for that one connection?
Because you have always needed a Server CAL for any use of any Windows Server product (except special cases like when using as an anonymous web server and even then it is a tough area to determine, internal users never count for example) except for special administration cases where nothing but administration is being done.
Simple rule is - if a user uses server resources, they need a Server CAL. Number of connections was never a determining factor in that. There are a few exceptions when one does not need a Server CAL, but for the most part, they always do.
already - thanks that makes sense.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
@Dashrender said:
This whole thing boils down to - can you legally install Windows 2012 R2 on a VM host and use that OS as a desktop for everyone instead of using Windows 7 Pro, and skip paying for the VDI? If yes, well then there you go.
That's what Microsoft said that you could do. But Server licenses are so much more expensive, that very few people decide to spend their money that way. But you certainly can do so.
If you're looking to do a VDI install, buying an Enterprise Windows Server license will likely cost you WAY less (unlimited windows server installs)
-
The "when do you not need a server CAL" is problematic. As it starts to include everyone on the Internet if you are not careful. It is a reason why many people avoid Windows servers for web applications or web sites. There is always a danger that your seemingly normal use will actually violate a license agreement. And unlike internal users where you might have only ten licenses for twelve people because you miscounted or didn't understand something, you might be liable for billions of Internet users because it might fall into "open use" and get all messy.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
The "when do you not need a server CAL" is problematic. As it starts to include everyone on the Internet if you are not careful. It is a reason why many people avoid Windows servers for web applications or web sites. There is always a danger that your seemingly normal use will actually violate a license agreement. And unlike internal users where you might have only ten licenses for twelve people because you miscounted or didn't understand something, you might be liable for billions of Internet users because it might fall into "open use" and get all messy.
That part I've always understood.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you're looking to do a VDI install, buying an Enterprise Windows Server license will likely cost you WAY less (unlimited windows server installs)
That's why the DataCenter licensing (unlimited VMs per CPU) is popular as a VDI substitute. However not all software works correctly if it detects a server OS (AV often does this, for example.) And the per CPU licensing can make for some expensive mistakes as you are pricing on compute capacity instead of by the instance.
And once you get pretty large, you probably want some nice web gateway or other handler to improve the performance or ease of use. And that's when RDS hits you because those extended features come via the RDS packages. So if you are doing a small VDI setup for a few users, DataCenter licensing might work out for you. If you are looking to do an enterprise VDI deployment, actual VDI is probably actually the better way to go.
