Concept: Automate License Acquisition
-
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. Like you said, more licensing can be purchased extremely quickly. Often the approval takes longer than license acquisition.
I honestly thought my previous boss was joking when he asked me to look into it... Until he said he was serious and we talked about it... We didn't get failover licenses.
-
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
Often the approval takes longer than license acquisition.
Then that is a manager deciding that being down is more important than paying for the license, even in the heat of the moment while the outage is happening. If that happens, it proves that the company felt that the lowest possible cost for risk mitigation was not worth it so the license and the failover should not happen. Easy peasy.
-
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. L
Basically there is no such thing. Feeling that there is is what makes it confusing. All usage of Windows is... well.. usage of Windows. So if you use it, you have to license it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
Often the approval takes longer than license acquisition.
Then that is a manager deciding that being down is more important than paying for the license, even in the heat of the moment while the outage is happening. If that happens, it proves that the company felt that the lowest possible cost for risk mitigation was not worth it so the license and the failover should not happen. Easy peasy.
I should have specified. We'll be trying to buy something, whether that is hardware or software... After we vet the product and state the reasoning, it goes through a lengthy approval process. In some networks, I would say "If we upgrade the software, it'll break this over here.. so we need to upgrade that software before we do anything else. It costs X amount of money." Manager says it'll be taken under consideration... Some time passes and the software is beyond its point of being supported and we run into an issue where we have to contact the company. But they won't talk to us until we pay them quite a bit of money for the upgrade... then all of a sudden it's quickly cutting a check for $25k and a late night to upgrade that monster of an install.
Apparently it's not important sometimes unless it's an emergency. Even if you're saying (for months) "This is important... Hey, this is coming down the pike, it's important..."
-
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
Often the approval takes longer than license acquisition.
Then that is a manager deciding that being down is more important than paying for the license, even in the heat of the moment while the outage is happening. If that happens, it proves that the company felt that the lowest possible cost for risk mitigation was not worth it so the license and the failover should not happen. Easy peasy.
I should have specified. We'll be trying to buy something, whether that is hardware or software... After we vet the product and state the reasoning, it goes through a lengthy approval process. In some networks, I would say "If we upgrade the software, it'll break this over here.. so we need to upgrade that software before we do anything else. It costs X amount of money." Manager says it'll be taken under consideration... Some time passes and the software is beyond its point of being supported and we run into an issue where we have to contact the company. But they won't talk to us until we pay them quite a bit of money for the upgrade... then all of a sudden it's quickly cutting a check for $25k and a late night to upgrade that monster of an install.
Again, that's a manager making a VERY clear decision. Not a good one, but there is no such thing as "no decision." Not paying for needed support is the decision there. For whatever reason, the decisions maker(s) decided that that risk and cost was what they felt was a good idea.
-
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
Apparently it's not important sometimes unless it's an emergency. Even if you're saying (for months) "This is important... Hey, this is coming down the pike, it's important..."
Or they hope that someone else has to sign off on it. Often it is people putting the company's needs second and just playing politics. I see that a lot. But at the end of the day, someone at the top (CEO) has to make politics prioritized over corporate value. So even then, it's a decision.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. L
Basically there is no such thing. Feeling that there is is what makes it confusing. All usage of Windows is... well.. usage of Windows. So if you use it, you have to license it.
I buy a license to run a single Windows server. That single server only runs on a single VM Host at any given time, excepting live migrations. Why do I need two licenses for this?
Is that because I have two servers that could possibly run my single copy of Windows Server?
-
@dafyre said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. L
Basically there is no such thing. Feeling that there is is what makes it confusing. All usage of Windows is... well.. usage of Windows. So if you use it, you have to license it.
I buy a license to run a single Windows server. That single server only runs on a single VM Host at any given time, excepting live migrations. Why do I need two licenses for this?
Is that because I have two servers that could possibly run my single copy of Windows Server?
Because the license that you mention does not allow the usage that you describe. Unless you also limit the live migrations to once every 90 days, you need one license per physical server, not just one overall.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@dafyre said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. L
Basically there is no such thing. Feeling that there is is what makes it confusing. All usage of Windows is... well.. usage of Windows. So if you use it, you have to license it.
I buy a license to run a single Windows server. That single server only runs on a single VM Host at any given time, excepting live migrations. Why do I need two licenses for this?
Is that because I have two servers that could possibly run my single copy of Windows Server?
Because the license that you mention does not allow the usage that you describe. Unless you also limit the live migrations to once every 90 days, you need one license per physical server, not just one overall.
Wow... I think that just pretty much eliminated me ever using a Windows Server for anything again, if I have any say in the matter!
-
@dafyre said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@dafyre said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. L
Basically there is no such thing. Feeling that there is is what makes it confusing. All usage of Windows is... well.. usage of Windows. So if you use it, you have to license it.
I buy a license to run a single Windows server. That single server only runs on a single VM Host at any given time, excepting live migrations. Why do I need two licenses for this?
Is that because I have two servers that could possibly run my single copy of Windows Server?
Because the license that you mention does not allow the usage that you describe. Unless you also limit the live migrations to once every 90 days, you need one license per physical server, not just one overall.
Wow... I think that just pretty much eliminated me ever using a Windows Server for anything again, if I have any say in the matter!
Pretty soon you will have to pay for every system you have because you "could" install Windows on it and run it at the same time.
-
@dafyre said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@dafyre said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@scottalanmiller said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
@BBigford said in Concept: Automate License Acquisition:
"Backup" or "failover" licenses is something I have never understood. L
Basically there is no such thing. Feeling that there is is what makes it confusing. All usage of Windows is... well.. usage of Windows. So if you use it, you have to license it.
I buy a license to run a single Windows server. That single server only runs on a single VM Host at any given time, excepting live migrations. Why do I need two licenses for this?
Is that because I have two servers that could possibly run my single copy of Windows Server?
Because the license that you mention does not allow the usage that you describe. Unless you also limit the live migrations to once every 90 days, you need one license per physical server, not just one overall.
Wow... I think that just pretty much eliminated me ever using a Windows Server for anything again, if I have any say in the matter!
It's always been like that. One of the many, many limitations that shocks me how often SMBs just accept as "we have to do it this way and won't even consider alternatives."
