Backup System For 5 PC SMB
-
Bottom line is, Windows licensing is expensive
-
@scottalanmiller techsoup is one of the few perks of non-profit life
-
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?
