Backup System For 5 PC SMB
-
I have found time and again that the incredible cost to managing and ensuring compliance for Microsoft licensing, rather than the actual cost of it, has been a driving factor for businesses choosing UNIX, mostly Linux. With most Linux options all of this complexity just melts away. You don't need to think about licenses at all, you just deploy what you need. With Windows you spend more time figuring out the licenses than it takes to manage Linux.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not sure what you mean by not running Windows Server 2012 R2, no physical server should run Windows. Windows should always be a VM on top of a hypervisor. So the Unitrends box, which runs KVM, is absolutely identical to any other potential server that might run your Windows VMs.
What I mean is:
Let's say I have one Server 2012 R2 STandard and it is hosting a 2012 R2 VM. I am using some backup product to do image backups of this VM. Something on the backup product (whether it be a device or straight software) allows you to spin up a virtual instance of the backup image of that VM located on another machine. The backup box is running linux or whatever they use to do the backups, etc. But the virtual VM is running Server 2012, and thus needs a license.Or ... let's say I export the backup image from the backup box. I spin that up in VirtualBox to test it. I need ANOTHER license for Server 2012 to do that, correct?
-
@BRRABill needs to post more questions. Still pretty new around here and already has two threads in the all time most popular list!
-
Off-topic:
LOL every time I see you post, I think it's your icon posting. -
@BRRABill said:
Let's say I have one Server 2012 R2 STandard and it is hosting a 2012 R2 VM.
OSes can't host VMs. I think you are confusing Server with HyperV.
-
@BRRABill gently guffaws and wiggles mustache
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill needs to post more questions. Still pretty new around here and already has two threads in the all time most popular list!
Oh, I have some more coming, don't you worry.
You'll rue the day you invited me here.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
OSes can't host VMs. I think you are confusing Server with HyperV.
I am considering Hyper-V a feature/role of a Server 2012 machine. Is that incorrect?
I install 2012, I enable Hyper-V. I create VMs.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@BRRABill gently guffaws and wiggles mustache
Did you see (I am sure you have) his speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner?
-
@BRRABill that's correct, just don't install anything except hyperv on it
-
@BRRABill said:
I am using some backup product to do image backups of this VM. Something on the backup product (whether it be a device or straight software) allows you to spin up a virtual instance of the backup image of that VM located on another machine. The backup box is running linux or whatever they use to do the backups, etc. But the virtual VM is running Server 2012, and thus needs a license.
Or ... let's say I export the backup image from the backup box. I spin that up in VirtualBox to test it. I need ANOTHER license for Server 2012 to do that, correct?
You don't license the VMs. You license the physical device. Not the hypervisor, not the VMs. Just the physical device. You can either apply "Windows Server Standard" licenses to get to the number of VMs that you want to be able to run on that device or you can apply a "Windows Server DC" license to have an unlimited number on a single device.
That's all. You always need the platform licenses if you want a Windows Server VM and you need the right combination that gets you to the number of instances that you need. There is never a time that you need to worry about what hypervisor is in use or how the VMs are running, only that they are or are not there.
-
@BRRABill said:
I am considering Hyper-V a feature/role of a Server 2012 machine. Is that incorrect?
No, Microsoft makes it appear that way for some insane reason, but HyperV is a type 1 hypervisor and not a part of Windows nor can it run on Windows nor can VMs run on Windows. If you are running HyperV, it is installed to the bare metal and all VMs run on top of it. Always, no exceptions. The "role" is an installation method to get to that point and not the generally recommended one. But it is nothing but an installer, Windows is always a VM on top of HyperV.
-
@BRRABill said:
I install 2012, I enable Hyper-V. I create VMs.
This is true where:
enable equals install as a shim on the bare metal underneath the running instance of Windows and restart the system turning the original instance of Windows into a VM on top of HyperV.
Enable is a very confusing way to think of that process.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
No, Microsoft makes it appear that way for some insane reason, but HyperV is a type 1 hypervisor and not a part of Windows nor can it run on Windows nor can VMs run on Windows. If you are running HyperV, it is installed to the bare metal and all VMs run on top of it. Always, no exceptions. The "role" is an installation method to get to that point and not the generally recommended one. But it is nothing but an installer, Windows is always a VM on top of HyperV.
OK, that is definitely going into a separate thread, because I don't know what you mean.
-
This page should help: http://mangolassi.it/topic/5272/somethings-you-need-to-know-about-hyperv
-
@BRRABill said:
OK, that is definitely going into a separate thread, because I don't know what you mean.
Sounds like a plan
-
Actually, I think I get it now.
Server 2012R2 by itself = regular server
Then you "install" Hyper-V
The "original regular" server becomes another VM on top of Hyper-V, but can technically be used for nothing. -
Do you feel like you've been feeding a baby bird?
-
@BRRABill said:
Actually, I think I get it now.
Server 2012R2 by itself = regular server
Then you "install" Hyper-V
The "original regular" server becomes another VM on top of Hyper-V, but can technically be used for nothing.Boom! You got it!
-
We did some offline digging into this last night. Some of the important tack-aways that seem to answer a lot of the questions....
- Activation and keys are technical DRM components and do not reflect or directly relate to licensing. Vendors giving activation information are not discussing licensing and the ability to get a valid activation from MS does not mean that there is valid licensing. No matter what the activation status, licensing remains the client's responsibility to determine and ensure is correct.
- The majority use case for all of these imaging solutions is for servers, not workstations. Workstations are supported insofar as they are not blocked. But that there is an ability to use the products with workstations doesn't mean that that is the design intent or a major design consideration. So features built for servers exist without specific intent for the workstations. The licensing for workstations is not related to the licensing for servers so things that are normal and sensible for servers may be impractical for workstations.
- Virtual and Physical workstations have different licensing and the imaging DR options are normal for one and not the other. Not every feature is available to every licensing model.
- End users are responsible for all licensing far beyond the use cases discussed. Using these tools to recover failed software or drive back to the same desktop is covered by a normal OEM license. Using these tools to recover to a different desktop is covered through VL licensing (more details than we can include here.) Using these tools to recover to a virtual instance is covered through a VDI license. VDI to VDI is naturally covered. Licensing is complex and extensive and requires a lot of planning no matter what strategy or tools are being considered.
- The "virtual testing" feature may not require a license as it is not doing what was believed but is only generated a screenshot to verify that the backup was successful. It never provides a running VM. We don't know the license status of this feature but it is not like what had been understood. It is an emailed screenshot, not a viable, running VM.
- The marketing from the vendors does not suggest using the tools for physical to virtual workstations. Workstations are an "also handles" feature and "virtual testing" is similar as a lesser feature. There are very valid use cases for each feature listed.
It's complicated but I think that we covered a ton of ground. And a few vendors are getting involved to discuss as well. On the back end I looped a couple in that are going to take a look and make sure that they are presenting the right information.
While this is a backup / restore situation, the licensing is extremely close to automatic virtualization failover scenarios as well.
