Hyper-V Failover Cluster 2012R2 with Windows 10 Node?
-
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://www.altaro.com/hyper-v/hyper-v-failover-clusters/
Not super clear but it looks like free Hyper-V does this.
So, It's free if you install the Free Version but if you pay and install the Windows 2012 R2 Standard version is not available.
It's impossible to understand how the licences works in Ms.
Hyper-V is always free. No ifs, ands or buts. No exceptions. Always free. MS licensing is confusing, but not around Hyper-V. It's as straightforward as can be. There are multiple ways to install it, but only one way to license it - free. There are no "versions".
Even if you own unlimited Windows 2012 R2 licenses, most experts agree that you don't use that installation method, that's a fall back for Windows admins that just flee at the sight of anything outside of their normal routine. It's an illusion for people who can't handle the thought of a hypervisor. But the recommended install is always the pure Hyper-V one because it is the lightest means of installing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller said:
http://www.altaro.com/hyper-v/hyper-v-failover-clusters/
Not super clear but it looks like free Hyper-V does this.
So, It's free if you install the Free Version but if you pay and install the Windows 2012 R2 Standard version is not available.
It's impossible to understand how the licences works in Ms.
Hyper-V is always free. No ifs, ands or buts. No exceptions. Always free. MS licensing is confusing, but not around Hyper-V. It's as straightforward as can be. There are multiple ways to install it, but only one way to license it - free. There are no "versions".
Even if you own unlimited Windows 2012 R2 licenses, most experts agree that you don't use that installation method, that's a fall back for Windows admins that just flee at the sight of anything outside of their normal routine. It's an illusion for people who can't handle the thought of a hypervisor. But the recommended install is always the pure Hyper-V one because it is the lightest means of installing.
Thank you for the explication.
-
@iroal the biggest confusions come from so many SMB Windows Admins that have convinced each other that Hyper-V exists in different modes because it "appears" that way to those not versed in virtualization and this, in turn, makes licensing seem confusing because they believe that there are different Hyper-V versions and associate things with Hyper-V that are actually part of Windows and vice versa. So in communities like SW, there are a huge number of people who repeat the same myths so much that it seems like it must be true.
Those of us coming from Xen backgrounds have an advantage because we are already aware of how Hyper-V works and what appears to be complicated from a Windows perspective, mostly because of Microsoft trying to make things "easy" for Windows admins, is actually quite simple. It's a problem that Microsoft tries to abstract something a bit too much and makes it confusing when there is no need for it. Calling the VM that controls the system the "physical" is insane, physical already means something quite the opposite, for example.
-
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-V -
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VUsing anything other than the "pure" Hyper-V installation adds confusion because you are applying a Windows license to the control environment and have to deal with Windows licensing on top of Hyper-V. If you avoid having that extra install, it gets easy to deal with (there is nothing to track or know.) All of the complications come from the Windows Server install rather than from the Hyper-V install.
I would recommend moving to straight Hyper-V installations to make things easier and more powerful. It is safer and more performant from having fewer wasted resources in the control environment. But it requires more effort to manage in a small environment.
-
It would be nice if MS would just get rid of the ability to install Hyper-V from within a Windows server that is already running.
Treat it just like XenServer or ESXi.
Scott - can you think of any reason they don't do this? Do you think people buy extra licenses because they don't understand and allow themselves to believe that more licensing is required?
-
@Dashrender said:
It would be nice if MS would just get rid of the ability to install Hyper-V from within a Windows server that is already running.
Treat it just like XenServer or ESXi.
I'd like that, but most Windows Admins demand it. It's actually the same install method that Xen has traditionally used. That is where they copied it from.
-
@Dashrender said:
Scott - can you think of any reason they don't do this? Do you think people buy extra licenses because they don't understand and allow themselves to believe that more licensing is required?
It almost never causes people to buy more licenses, it just causes them confusion. Unless you are installing Hyper-V without any licensed Windows servers on top of it, there is no extra cost to doing this. And honestly, who uses Hyper-V if they don't virtualize Windows? If you are a pure UNIX shop, Xen is the obvious choice.
-
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VFailover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.
-
@KOOLER said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VFailover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.
Free Hyper-V works just fine, it's that it doesn't replace Windows licensing. It's just unrelated. You could say that a puppy doesn't work here either, but having a puppy doesn't cause a problem either, it's just not related to the issue at hand - that of licensing the Windows VMs on top of the hypervisor, whatever that hypervisor is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@KOOLER said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller
In my case I had several confusions with Fail over clustering and his licences model in Hyper-VFailover clustering is no issue as you have licensed VMs already. Live migration IS an issue however because a) you have to move licensed VM to licensed host (free Hyper-V does not work here) and b) you cannot change licensed for 90 days after you did migration. This is SO complicated it's virtually not possible to do anything with even Standard (forget about free Hyper-V alone) without violating MSFT licensing scheme.
Free Hyper-V works just fine, it's that it doesn't replace Windows licensing. It's just unrelated. You could say that a puppy doesn't work here either, but having a puppy doesn't cause a problem either, it's just not related to the issue at hand - that of licensing the Windows VMs on top of the hypervisor, whatever that hypervisor is.
OK, could be I misunderstood the question ...
