I can't even
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
https://download.microsoft.com/download/E/.../WindowsServer2016-Licensing-Guide.pdf
The following is in the above PDF and is specific to Software Assurance ONLY. Without SA, you cannot do the below without additional licensing, and uses the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA:
- ...a Windows Server license is not required for the disaster recovery server if the Hyper-V role within Windows Server is used to replicate virtual OSEs from the production server at a primary site to a disaster recovery server.
- ...The disaster recovery server may be used only to run hardware virtualization software (such as Hyper-V), provide
hardware virtualization services, run software agents to manage the hardware virtualization software, serve as a
destination for replication, receive replicated virtual OSEs, test failover, and/or await failover of the virtual OSEs.
... in other words, it's not a benefit of SA if you don't need SA to do it in the first place.
Where are you getting your interpretation from? You just provided exactly what supports that I said, but claim it is the opposite. Nothing from MS says otherwise. And all those other links are not MS and are specifically the misleading non-source material that people keep quoting instead of MS.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying VM replication does not require the other end to be licensed because replica/backup = same thing.
I'm saying that yes, the other end does require licensing, and that I can't find anythign anywhere that says otherwise.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
https://download.microsoft.com/download/E/.../WindowsServer2016-Licensing-Guide.pdf
The following is in the above PDF and is specific to Software Assurance ONLY. Without SA, you cannot do the below without additional licensing, and uses the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA:
- ...a Windows Server license is not required for the disaster recovery server if the Hyper-V role within Windows Server is used to replicate virtual OSEs from the production server at a primary site to a disaster recovery server.
- ...The disaster recovery server may be used only to run hardware virtualization software (such as Hyper-V), provide
hardware virtualization services, run software agents to manage the hardware virtualization software, serve as a
destination for replication, receive replicated virtual OSEs, test failover, and/or await failover of the virtual OSEs.
... in other words, it's not a benefit of SA if you don't need SA to do it in the first place.
Where are you getting your interpretation from? You just provided exactly what supports that I said, but claim it is the opposite. Nothing from MS says otherwise. And all those other links are not MS and are specifically the misleading non-source material that people keep quoting instead of MS.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying VM replication does not require the other end to be licensed because replica/backup = same thing.
It doesn't require it because nothing requires it. In order for something to need a license, MS must define it as needing one.
A replica, and a backup, are just cold files. nothing more. No files, ever, require a license from Microsoft. Of course, MS could change that, but they never have. There is absolutely nothing in the MS ecosystem where you must pay a license fee in order to store a file on disk.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
I was actually consulting on a backup design just yesterday where we were using Hyper-V in exactly this way as a backup target, but building the backup system using Starwind. It was a backup device in every way, no expectation of VMs to run there, no live systems ever, just Hyper-V + Starwind used to handle the replica-based file backups.
This sounds a bit like a Unitrends appliance setup - where you can launch the backup as a VM if needed, but I'd assume in the case of Unitrends, the moment you do that, you either just transferred the license to the Unitrends box, or you bought a license for it.
Right, systems like Unitrends, Datto, Veeam, etc. all allow you to spin up in the same place as the backup from both backups and replicas (as they are the same thing) meaning if MS requires this... then you need it for every backup copy no matter where it is - based on the ABILITY to run it, not actually running it.
Which then makes you wonder if having a copy on an external USB would need to be licensed for every server on earth, since it could be plugged in and spun up literally anywhere, right?
Yes, they do. They do backups, and you are able to spin up a backup on the Unitrends server. This would fall under the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA, which you must have in order to do so. Without SA, you need a license to do this as well. But this isn't what Microsoft refers to as Replication.
Even with replication, the same is true.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
I'm saying that yes, the other end does require licensing, and that I can't find anythign anywhere that says otherwise.
It doesn't have to say otherwise, that's not how it works. If it doesn't state that you need one, you don't need one. That's how it defaults.
You don't need a "Friday Night Party License" to update Windows on a Friday night while drinking beer. But you can't find a statement to the contrary - but obviously just because MS doesn't say that you can drink beer doesn't mean that you can't. By not being an activity requiring a license, there is nothing to document.
In this situation, if the replica, being a cold file stored on disk, requires a special license, MS must document it as being so. Otherwise, lacking that contradiction to their stock rules, it is covered by the normal licensing and use cases.
So, until someone provides a statement from MS stating that cold files on disk require licensing, and in such a way that it applies to the systems we have, we operate under the assumption that none exists - because in years of having this discussion, no one including MS themselves, have ever produced such a requirement.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
I was actually consulting on a backup design just yesterday where we were using Hyper-V in exactly this way as a backup target, but building the backup system using Starwind. It was a backup device in every way, no expectation of VMs to run there, no live systems ever, just Hyper-V + Starwind used to handle the replica-based file backups.
This sounds a bit like a Unitrends appliance setup - where you can launch the backup as a VM if needed, but I'd assume in the case of Unitrends, the moment you do that, you either just transferred the license to the Unitrends box, or you bought a license for it.
Right, systems like Unitrends, Datto, Veeam, etc. all allow you to spin up in the same place as the backup from both backups and replicas (as they are the same thing) meaning if MS requires this... then you need it for every backup copy no matter where it is - based on the ABILITY to run it, not actually running it.
Which then makes you wonder if having a copy on an external USB would need to be licensed for every server on earth, since it could be plugged in and spun up literally anywhere, right?
Yes, they do. They do backups, and you are able to spin up a backup on the Unitrends server. This would fall under the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA, which you must have in order to do so. Without SA, you need a license to do this as well. But this isn't what Microsoft refers to as Replication.
Even with replication, the same is true.
But it IS replication. And you only need the license IF you spin things up, not just to have the replica and/or backup kept there.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
The term "been set up for DR purposes", of course, refers to being ready to turn on automatically and would then need the license ready before it turns on. One set to be turned on manually or that requires approval before turning on would not need the license, but it is not set up yet, but could be very quickly. At which time the license would be needed.
Wow, that is fine damn line! The only real difference being, it doesn't automatically turn on when the other one is detected as failed, i.e. human interaction is required.
-
So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...
Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.
Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.
The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.
So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
The term "been set up for DR purposes", of course, refers to being ready to turn on automatically and would then need the license ready before it turns on. One set to be turned on manually or that requires approval before turning on would not need the license, but it is not set up yet, but could be very quickly. At which time the license would be needed.
Wow, that is fine damn line! The only real difference being, it doesn't automatically turn on when the other one is detected as failed, i.e. human interaction is required.
Not really a fine line. If you turn on automation, you intend for something to happen. If you have a system ask you if you want to do something, you determine intent later.
The difference is a gun that shoots anyone that walks in the door. Or you holding a gun and having the option to shoot anyone that comes through the door.
Not really a fine line at all, totally different things.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
I'm saying that yes, the other end does require licensing, and that I can't find anythign anywhere that says otherwise.
This is like proving a negative.
-
Even automation becomes a grey area... do you need a license to have DR automated? No, not actually. You are not in violation until such time as you run it. Now, that's a ridiculous situation compared to the manual scenario. It means you might be in violation without knowing it at any moment. But, if you were willing to risk that violation, you aren't technically in need of the license unless one system fails and it falls over. So it's a gamble situation. On the chance that the first server doesn't fail, you never needed a license. In the case where it does... whoops, you are in violation.
In this specific case we get into the "when do you need to license things that might happen?* Certain you need to if they do happen, but what about if they might happen? It's the cat in the box problem, and obviously your business should license if they plan to automate, it's ridiculous not to.
But you should definitely not license if the plan is to be ready and evaluate at the time that it happens and buy the license then if you decide to move forward with DR. There is no DR until that time, there is no intent until that time, there is no reason to have spent money on a license until that time.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
I'm saying that yes, the other end does require licensing, and that I can't find anythign anywhere that says otherwise.
This is like proving a negative.
Exactly. There's no reason for MS to have made a document to state this isn't true, as there is nothing suggesting that such a thing exists.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...
Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.
Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.
The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.
So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.
Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...
Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.
Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.
The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.
So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.
Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.
Okay, but then what's there to discuss? The SA license only applies in scenarios that we haven't been discussing, right?
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
There is no DR until that time, there is no intent until that time, there is no reason to have spent money on a license until that time.
I think this is where a lot of people disagree with you - using Hyper-V replication to replicate a VM to another Hyper-V host, instead of using backup software to backup to dumb storage, to most in implying intent to spin up the replica in case of DR.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...
Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.
Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.
The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.
So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.
Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.
Okay, but then what's there to discuss? The SA license only applies in scenarios that we haven't been discussing, right?
Right.
Here's the part where there is no documentation specific to the Hyper-V Replication:
No Software Assurance, no disaster recovery, etc. etc... let's leave that out of the equation, as it provides no value in this case.
Someone simply has HV01 and HV02. Both are running Hyper-V Server 2016. HV01 has VM1 under a WS2016 standard license. HV02 has nothing but Hyper-V Server 2016.
Someone is using Hyper-V Replication to replicate VM1 to HV02.
First some MS provided definitions:
Operating System Environment (OSE) means all or part of an operating system Instance, or all or part of a virtual (or otherwise emulated) operating system Instance which enables separate machine identity (primary computer name or similar unique identifier) or separate administrative rights, and instances of applications, if any, configured to run on the operating system Instance or parts identified above. A physical hardware system can have one Physical OSE and/or one or more Virtual OSEs.
Virtual OSE means an OSE that is configured to run on a virtual hardware system.
Instance means an image of software that is created by executing the software’s setup or install procedure or by duplicating an existing Instance.
MS clearly states that all OSEs must be licensed. So the question then becomes this:
Is VM1 an OSE?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 when it's running, and VM1 on HV01 is off?
- Yes.
There are a lot of "or"s in their definitions, which help to define them. After an "or", you can take the rest of it out, but must leave things before and after the "and"s.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.
Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?
I assume yes.
I don't see any mention of the word "running".
Unless that is said somewhere else.
-
Someone call Bill Gates and get a damed answer.
-
This whole discussion is part of what fueled my interest in Linux.
-
@eddiejennings said in I can't even:
This whole discussion is part of what fueled my interest in Linux.
Yeah, no question about replicating Linux VMs with Hyper-V.
