Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
That if the core of the request was ignored and violated that he could then pay to have a hypervisor there is true is a red herring, I think. The thread is about avoiding using that license. That is the one and only point ot the OP's request.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
What am I missing here?
This is what you are missing..
He can't use anything 2012 R2 unless it is the free Hyper-V 2012 R2
Yes he can. Who the hell said you cannot use Server 2012 R2 as a Hypervisor?
You can most certainly 100% use Server 2012 R2 with the Hyper-V role as a hypervisor. You are NOT required to use Hyper-V Server 2012 R2.THe OP did. Not using the license is a requirement to him. It's that simple. You are totally ignoring the one thing that the thread is about.
-
@DustinB3403 and I even talked about the cost of the license to fix this earlier. So you can't say that we missed this. We certainly are aware that he can pay for the license to get around his problem. And we discussed what it would cost comparatively and why he doesn't seriously consider that at this point as the smarter option.
But we didn't miss that not using that license was the point for the OP.
-
We don't know who "they" are there, but we assume someone with authority making this license not something that the "OP has". I know, reading into it a bit. But if he doesn't have permissions to use it, he doesn't "have" the license. He could make a request for one, of course, but that's what we assume this would require.
-
Someone wanting to use Storage Spaces, and asking for advice.
Are there any SS
exportsexperts yet? -
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Someone wanting to use Storage Spaces, and asking for advice.
Are there any SS exports yet?
Don't know about exports. Seems likely.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Someone wanting to use Storage Spaces, and asking for advice.
Are there any SS exports yet?
Don't know about exports. Seems likely.
Dang it.....
"experts"
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Someone wanting to use Storage Spaces, and asking for advice.
Are there any SS
exportsexperts yet?OH! Experts, ha ha. I totally missed that. There are a few. Tim G in SW maybe?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I guess the simple question is, what cost more an Upgraded license(to install hyper-v to the system), or the time and expense of deracking it, and shipping it back just to turn it back around after installing the proper OS.
Yeah, I can't believe that that doesn't justify the license upgrade. $800 max, probably a lot less. Shipping a server is not cheap.
No - it's more like $8000 because he was talking about Datacenter edition, aren't those like $4000 ea and you have to have at least two of them? one for each processor and two processor purchase minimum?
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I guess the simple question is, what cost more an Upgraded license(to install hyper-v to the system), or the time and expense of deracking it, and shipping it back just to turn it back around after installing the proper OS.
Yeah, I can't believe that that doesn't justify the license upgrade. $800 max, probably a lot less. Shipping a server is not cheap.
No - it's more like $8000 because he was talking about Datacenter edition, aren't those like $4000 ea and you have to have at least two of them? one for each processor and two processor purchase minimum?
OH good point, makes shipping it back make that much more sense
Can't just switch the installed version (unless you virtualized up front 
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
d is that these are the facts. You are arguing that he "could" virtualize yet, but not in a way possible due to his license.
Here's a thought Scott - what if he had virtualized by installing Windows Server 2012 R2, then enabled the Hyper-V role. He would be in no better situation today if that were true.
-
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
d is that these are the facts. You are arguing that he "could" virtualize yet, but not in a way possible due to his license.
Here's a thought Scott - what if he had virtualized by installing Windows Server 2012 R2, then enabled the Hyper-V role. He would be in no better situation today if that were true.
That's correct, and while that's not a "best practice" situation, it's a "standard practice" one at that point. It's not a good way to install virtualization in general (with unnecessary overhead and encumbrances and licensing). So it gets a little complicated because there is a poor way to do the right thing that would have introduced the problem back in.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
No, had he licensed a hypervisor properly it would have been fine, too. It's just that there is one specific way that he could have coupled his current license problem to a hypervisor (which is what I had already described above.)
However, I would argue that the best practice is to always virtualize and "always" means always, not "do it physical then fix it." Fixing it is better than not fixing it, of course. But if you stick to "always" you fix the issue here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
No, had he licensed a hypervisor properly it would have been fine, too.
of course, duh, what was I thinking.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
No, had he licensed a hypervisor properly it would have been fine, too. It's just that there is one specific way that he could have coupled his current license problem to a hypervisor (which is what I had already described above.)
However, I would argue that the best practice is to always virtualize and "always" means always, not "do it physical then fix it." Fixing it is better than not fixing it, of course. But if you stick to "always" you fix the issue here.
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Really his best solution is iLo or DRAC, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Really his best solution is iLo or DRAC, etc.
Assuming that he has that. Once you are dealing with people that are not virtualizing, the chances of having OOB start getting pretty low. If you are skipping the easiest, totally free, stuff what are the chances that you pay for the less obvious, not free stuff that does less?
-
@travisdh1 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
THat's correct, but it requires it "to be installed" in this case.
-
@travisdh1 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
Sure, as long as you install Hyper-V server and aren't using Hyper-V as a feature in Windows Server. Which currently is the only option to the OP of that thread.
