Negotiated Drive Speed
-
@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.
-
@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. 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.
Backups of the VMs would be OK though, no? That is managing the VMs. Though from previous threads it doesn't seem like anyone does that anyway. So it is a moot point.
I would definitely be looking to manage it from another machine. I've only ver install it local to the server, and used RDP to connect to it. But I see now there are better ways, obviously.
-
@BRRABill said:
@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.
Why not? have you ever used ESXi? it's been GUI-less since day one. You install it from USB or CD, then connect to it via web browser, download and install vSphere client, connect via the client and go!
Hyper-V GUI-Less is similar - Install from USB or CD, on local workstation, install Hyper-V manager and RSAT, connect and GO!
-
@BRRABill said:
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.
If you use the GUI, it is cumbersome. RDP to a machine to manage it? That's horribly complex and slow. Even if you have it installed, you would never want to use it.
Have you looked at the alternative? I truly do not understand this "I'm familiar with it" line. I don't see how the MS tools are any more "natural" than the other ones. They are all equally not something that you are used to.
