Negotiated Drive Speed
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
VMWare did not have this until recently. VMWare was managed via the desktop client and was not anywhere close to a single pane.
Eh? One VM host in a single pane/single app is how I managed my ESXi server for 4+ years. When I finally got my second host, I upgraded to ESXi essentials from free version and installed vCenter and now had a single pane for both servers.
The vCenter web interface was not there in a decent form until 5.5 I believe.
OK that's still 4 years ago. and how many SMBs have more than one ESXi host? I'm guessing all of your clients?
Well, it's unfair because ESXi causes people to change their hosts. It's not how many do, it's how many would.
If we use ESXi, we decom all our old gear and toss it. Too expensive to keep. If we use HyperV or XenServer, we put that only older gear and keep it around for lower end workloads, lab or test spots or failover for cheap under a single pane of glass.
What?
It's causality. You can't look at people who use ESXi to determine if it makes sense for them, because their environment is already altered by the fact that they use ESXi or they are filtered by the fact that they found it useful.
Ask the general population how many are vegetarian, it's like 5%. Now survey people who eat at Bob's BBQ Shack what percentage of them are vegetarian and you'd be lucky to get .5%. It's a self selecting survey. You naturally filter out the SMBs that would have multiple machines and/or you get people to alter the number that they have to meet ESXi licensing and then look at them and say see... they didn't need a single pane of glass.
But go on SW or ML and see people regularly talk about making decisions around using second or third machines based on that licensing, it's a real factor.
-
Well, if you're willing to use an agent based backup solution, you can use ESXi free on all the hosts, sure you don't get one pane for all hosts, but we're talking about SMBs here. I had no issue managing each ESXi host on it's own. The only reason I install vCenter was - well, because I already paid for it, I might as well try it out and see what it's like. I would have been happy to manage my two boxes separately. These two panes would have still been less than the number of apps needed to mange one Hyper-V host.
In that situation, XS is a clear winner - completely free open APIs. A free backup solution in XO.
-
@Dashrender said:
Well, if you're willing to use an agent based backup solution, you can use ESXi free on all the hosts, sure you don't get one pane for all hosts, but we're talking about SMBs here. I had no issue managing each ESXi host on it's own.
No, but people do. That's why we keep saying single pane of glass, because it is relatively important. It's a major gap. You want one view into the farm, not to treat each machine individually. That seems almost silly in this day and age. especially when single pane of glass is free.
If you aren't getting single pane and aren't even getting API backups... why are you choosing ESXi?
-
@Dashrender said:
These two panes would have still been less than the number of apps needed to mange one Hyper-V host.
Two, sure. But then you eventually add a third. It sprawls naturally.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
These two panes would have still been less than the number of apps needed to mange one Hyper-V host.
Two, sure. But then you eventually add a third. It sprawls naturally.
In SMB? OK. I have two hosts today, and I could easily be on one if that one had enough storage on it. But I do realize that's just me.
As servers increase, I see the potential for SMBs to greatly reduce the number of hosts they have, especially when they can move to SSD - which used to be a hold back due to IOPs, but SSD pretty much gets rid of this from SMBs in small number of spindle (drive slots)
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
These two panes would have still been less than the number of apps needed to mange one Hyper-V host.
Two, sure. But then you eventually add a third. It sprawls naturally.
In SMB? OK. I have two hosts today, and I could easily be on one if that one had enough storage on it. But I do realize that's just me.
As servers increase, I see the potential for SMBs to greatly reduce the number of hosts they have, especially when they can move to SSD - which used to be a hold back due to IOPs, but SSD pretty much gets rid of this from SMBs in small number of spindle (drive slots)
The potential to reduce, sure. But how many reduce rather than maintaining old ones for failover, testing, extra workloads, just in case, etc.? If you got the old ones under a single pane of glass with the current production one, you tend to keep them. If they take extra effort to manage and are easily forgotten, they get left behind.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
These two panes would have still been less than the number of apps needed to mange one Hyper-V host.
Two, sure. But then you eventually add a third. It sprawls naturally.
In SMB? OK. I have two hosts today, and I could easily be on one if that one had enough storage on it. But I do realize that's just me.
As servers increase, I see the potential for SMBs to greatly reduce the number of hosts they have, especially when they can move to SSD - which used to be a hold back due to IOPs, but SSD pretty much gets rid of this from SMBs in small number of spindle (drive slots)
The potential to reduce, sure. But how many reduce rather than maintaining old ones for failover, testing, extra workloads, just in case, etc.? If you got the old ones under a single pane of glass with the current production one, you tend to keep them. If they take extra effort to manage and are easily forgotten, they get left behind.
So for new stuff, sure move way..
Man.. how did I end up defending ESXi? lol (Scott that is rhetorical)
-
Just to double back on this.
Are you saying if I install Hyper-V as a role on a core install of Server 2012 standard, that the VM it creates to manage itself actually counts against my allotment of 2 VMs for that license?
-
@BRRABill said:
Just to double back on this.
Are you saying if I install Hyper-V as a role on a core install of Server 2012 standard, that the VM it creates to manage itself actually counts against my allotment of 2 VMs for that license?
Actually let me answer my own question. I say this is NOT a licensing issue, as it appears you can legally do it. Is my thinking on this incorrect?
So I would have, with my 1 license,
1 server hosting the Hyper-V role and managing the VMs
2 Server 2012 VMs runningFrom Microsoft:
If you run all allowed instances in the virtual operating system environment, the instance of the server software
running in the physical operating system environment may be used only to:
o run hardware virtualization software.
o provide hardware virtualization services.
o run software to manage and service operating system environments on the licensed server -
@BRRABill said:
Just to double back on this.
Are you saying if I install Hyper-V as a role on a core install of Server 2012 standard, that the VM it creates to manage itself actually counts against my allotment of 2 VMs for that license?
No, no matter how you install it, the licensing will never change.
-
HyperV licensing is very simple. Here is the rule for it... HyperV is always free. Period. No exceptions, ever.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
HyperV licensing is very simple. Here is the rule for it... HyperV is always free. Period. No exceptions, ever.
You said adding the management VM for Hyper-V added "licensing overhead" ... what did you mean by that?
-
The Windows Server Licensing is also very simple. Here is the 2012 / 2012 R2 rules:
- Standard: You get two useable VMs on a single piece of hardware.
- DC: You get unlimited VMs on a single piece of hardware.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
HyperV licensing is very simple. Here is the rule for it... HyperV is always free. Period. No exceptions, ever.
You said adding the management VM for Hyper-V added "licensing overhead" ... what did you mean by that?
Yes, it causes conversations like this with endless confusion around licensing. Not costs of licenses in money, cost in time.
-
The additional licensing piece, which is effectively pointless to discuss for many reasons, is the one part that makes people confused.
If you have Windows Server Standard you get this special case "physical" license that can be used as a freebie local GUI for hyperV and nothing else. This is not recommended for install and is generally not good to install, so it's not a benefit in any real way. It cannot be used for anything but the management of HyperV (so it is not a useable VM.) So it can be discounted because even if you have the rights to it, it isn't useful and gains you nothing (essentially.)
Don't think about it, because it doesn't matter. The two former rules are all that actually matter.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The additional licensing piece, which is effectively pointless to discuss for many reasons, is the one part that makes people confused.
If you have Windows Server Standard you get this special case "physical" license that can be used as a freebie local GUI for hyperV and nothing else. This is not recommended for install and is generally not good to install, so it's not a benefit in any real way. It cannot be used for anything but the management of HyperV (so it is not a useable VM.) So it can be discounted because even if you have the rights to it, it isn't useful and gains you nothing (essentially.)
Don't think about it, because it doesn't matter. The two former rules are all that actually matter.
In other words, if you use that manage Hyper-V VM for something other than managing Hyper-V, for backups for example, you are now limited to only one more VM with your Windows Server license. If you only use it to manage Hyper-V, you can install Windows Server as a VM 2 more times, for a total of three Hyper-V VMs with only one license. But this is generally a waste of resources since you can and should be managing Hyper-V using Hyper-V manager and RSAT from another machine.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The additional licensing piece, which is effectively pointless to discuss for many reasons, is the one part that makes people confused.
If you have Windows Server Standard you get this special case "physical" license that can be used as a freebie local GUI for hyperV and nothing else. This is not recommended for install and is generally not good to install, so it's not a benefit in any real way. It cannot be used for anything but the management of HyperV (so it is not a useable VM.) So it can be discounted because even if you have the rights to it, it isn't useful and gains you nothing (essentially.)
Don't think about it, because it doesn't matter. The two former rules are all that actually matter.
OK, then I did 100% understand the licensing. I don't really find it confusing.
Also, I know you feel that way, but from what I have read, it basically takes up very little resources on the server. Even less so if you run it in GUI-less mode.
-
@BRRABill said:
Also, I know you feel that way, but from what I have read, it basically takes up very little resources on the server. Even less so if you run it in GUI-less mode.
If you run GUI-less, what is its point? No matter how little it takes up, it wastes resources, increases the patch cycle (the biggest concern) and increases the attack surface.
You can excuse that it is "not that bad" as much as you want. Tell me why it is better, instead.
-
@Dashrender said:
In other words, if you use that manage Hyper-V VM for something other than managing Hyper-V, for backups for example, you are now limited to only one more VM with your Windows Server license.
True, but a confusing way to approach it. You get two VMs that "do anything." It's that simple. Does it do something? It used a license. The number you get doesn't change. You get two.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
Also, I know you feel that way, but from what I have read, it basically takes up very little resources on the server. Even less so if you run it in GUI-less mode.
If you run GUI-less, what is its point? No matter how little it takes up, it wastes resources, increases the patch cycle (the biggest concern) and increases the attack surface.
You can excuse that it is "not that bad" as much as you want. Tell me why it is better, instead.
I, myself, wouldn't run it GUI-less. I like pictures.
I am familiar with all the tools it uses to manage the VMs.
That is, for me, why it is better. At least in concept.
