Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I guess the simple question is, what cost more an Upgraded license(to install hyper-v to the system), or the time and expense of deracking it, and shipping it back just to turn it back around after installing the proper OS.
Yeah, I can't believe that that doesn't justify the license upgrade. $800 max, probably a lot less. Shipping a server is not cheap.
No - it's more like $8000 because he was talking about Datacenter edition, aren't those like $4000 ea and you have to have at least two of them? one for each processor and two processor purchase minimum?
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I guess the simple question is, what cost more an Upgraded license(to install hyper-v to the system), or the time and expense of deracking it, and shipping it back just to turn it back around after installing the proper OS.
Yeah, I can't believe that that doesn't justify the license upgrade. $800 max, probably a lot less. Shipping a server is not cheap.
No - it's more like $8000 because he was talking about Datacenter edition, aren't those like $4000 ea and you have to have at least two of them? one for each processor and two processor purchase minimum?
OH good point, makes shipping it back make that much more sense
Can't just switch the installed version (unless you virtualized up front 
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
d is that these are the facts. You are arguing that he "could" virtualize yet, but not in a way possible due to his license.
Here's a thought Scott - what if he had virtualized by installing Windows Server 2012 R2, then enabled the Hyper-V role. He would be in no better situation today if that were true.
-
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
d is that these are the facts. You are arguing that he "could" virtualize yet, but not in a way possible due to his license.
Here's a thought Scott - what if he had virtualized by installing Windows Server 2012 R2, then enabled the Hyper-V role. He would be in no better situation today if that were true.
That's correct, and while that's not a "best practice" situation, it's a "standard practice" one at that point. It's not a good way to install virtualization in general (with unnecessary overhead and encumbrances and licensing). So it gets a little complicated because there is a poor way to do the right thing that would have introduced the problem back in.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
No, had he licensed a hypervisor properly it would have been fine, too. It's just that there is one specific way that he could have coupled his current license problem to a hypervisor (which is what I had already described above.)
However, I would argue that the best practice is to always virtualize and "always" means always, not "do it physical then fix it." Fixing it is better than not fixing it, of course. But if you stick to "always" you fix the issue here.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
No, had he licensed a hypervisor properly it would have been fine, too.
of course, duh, what was I thinking.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I think it would only matter if he virtualized on a fully free hypervisor up front would the OP have no issue.
No, had he licensed a hypervisor properly it would have been fine, too. It's just that there is one specific way that he could have coupled his current license problem to a hypervisor (which is what I had already described above.)
However, I would argue that the best practice is to always virtualize and "always" means always, not "do it physical then fix it." Fixing it is better than not fixing it, of course. But if you stick to "always" you fix the issue here.
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Really his best solution is iLo or DRAC, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Really his best solution is iLo or DRAC, etc.
Assuming that he has that. Once you are dealing with people that are not virtualizing, the chances of having OOB start getting pretty low. If you are skipping the easiest, totally free, stuff what are the chances that you pay for the less obvious, not free stuff that does less?
-
@travisdh1 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
THat's correct, but it requires it "to be installed" in this case.
-
@travisdh1 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
Sure, as long as you install Hyper-V server and aren't using Hyper-V as a feature in Windows Server. Which currently is the only option to the OP of that thread.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@travisdh1 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Though it's completely likely that the OP would have used a 2012 R2 license for his virtualization, so he wouldn't have been any better off in this situation.
Hyper-V doesn't require licensing. Doesn't matter what you run on top of it, hyper-v just doesn't require any license by itself.
Sure, as long as you install Hyper-V server and aren't using Hyper-V as a feature in Windows Server. Which currently is the only option to the OP of that thread.
Right... had he followed best practices, it would have been a free option. As it is, it's an $8,000 option. Hence why it is in this thread
$8,000 is a big price tag for "wrong installation order." -
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Someone wanting to use Storage Spaces, and asking for advice.
Are there any SS exports yet?
Don't know about exports. Seems likely.
Dang it.....
"experts"
Here we go... Tim-G
https://community.spiceworks.com/people/010101000110100101101101
-
@scottalanmiller He's a SSD expert, or just claiming to be?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller He's a SSD expert, or just claiming to be?
DOn't know but he's in every discussion on it.
-
Hrm.. would be good to have a few conversations with him regarding Micrsoft SSD.
Is he over here at ML? I'm tired of posting there.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Hrm.. would be good to have a few conversations with him regarding Micrsoft SSD.
Is he over here at ML? I'm tired of posting there.
Do we really want such "experts" over here? Part of what I love about ML is the lack of those people.
-
@RojoLoco said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Hrm.. would be good to have a few conversations with him regarding Micrsoft SSD.
Is he over here at ML? I'm tired of posting there.
Do we really want such "experts" over here? Part of what I love about ML is the lack of those people.
Fair point, but at least it would provide some insight into the Microsoft SSD design / setup / functionality without any of us putting our systems or labs at risk.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@RojoLoco said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Hrm.. would be good to have a few conversations with him regarding Micrsoft SSD.
Is he over here at ML? I'm tired of posting there.
Do we really want such "experts" over here? Part of what I love about ML is the lack of those people.
Fair point, but at least it would provide some insight into the Microsoft SSD design / setup / functionality without any of us putting our systems or labs at risk.
That's true, assuming he knows what he's talking about.
