I can't even
-
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
It got uglier with personal attacks....
I didn't attack anyone, just stating the facts of what a SBC is, and what is included with a hardware purchase.
I know, I didn't say you. I meant the three involved on this. I feel I was attacked on that post as well (Not from you or Scott). That's all. -
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
It got uglier with personal attacks....
I didn't attack anyone, just stating the facts of what a SBC is, and what is included with a hardware purchase.
I don't get it.
OP bought a RP package and wants to know what his options are.
Depending on the he got with the thing in the package, determines what he can do out-of-the-box.
In his case, it depends on what came pre-loaded on the SD card.
Looks like what OS came pre-loaded on the SD card includes like any programming language he wants.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
It got uglier with personal attacks....
I didn't attack anyone, just stating the facts of what a SBC is, and what is included with a hardware purchase.
I don't get it.
OP bought a RP package and wants to know what his options are.
Depending on the he got with the thing in the package, determines what he can do out-of-the-box.
In his case, it depends on what came pre-loaded on the SD card.
Looks like what OS came pre-loaded on the SD card includes like any programming language he wants.
Yes, we just need to know what he knows or wants to learn.
-
@dbeato said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
It got uglier with personal attacks....
I didn't attack anyone, just stating the facts of what a SBC is, and what is included with a hardware purchase.
I don't get it.
OP bought a RP package and wants to know what his options are.
Depending on the he got with the thing in the package, determines what he can do out-of-the-box.
In his case, it depends on what came pre-loaded on the SD card.
Looks like what OS came pre-loaded on the SD card includes like any programming language he wants.
Yes, we just need to know what he knows or wants to learn.
Which I followed up with in my most recent post.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
Care to expand to what you're driving at?
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
Care to expand to what you're driving at?
Hyper-V Replication is a coined term by Microsoft, its patented and whatever else. Everything else is Replication, but provided through your/the backup software.
There is no special licensing with Hyper-V Replication.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
Care to expand to what you're driving at?
An application within a server (or VM). This means you woudl need to power up the replica server in order to receive the replicate data.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
Care to expand to what you're driving at?
An application within a server (or VM). This means you woudl need to power up the replica server in order to receive the replicate data.
Well if that's truly the case, then by all means we can use Hyper-V Replication to create replicas/backups on another Hyper-V server with no concerns about licensing. - right?
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
Care to expand to what you're driving at?
An application within a server (or VM). This means you woudl need to power up the replica server in order to receive the replicate data.
Well if that's truly the case, then by all means we can use Hyper-V Replication to create replicas/backups on another Hyper-V server with no concerns about licensing. - right?
Correct, you only need to think about licensing when you go to power on that "Replica" which is on the Hyper-V replica target server.
-
Well props to @scottalanmiller for sussing out another myth!
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Straight from the MS docs.
As MS makes clear, SA doesn't cover cold backups, but only cold backups that have additionally been set up for disaster recovery purposes only. They make it clear that standard replicas that are kept cold need no license.
My definition, industry definition, MS definition - all agree. I got it from this originally.
So a warm backup requires turning it on to receive backups of data from prod server. Then they list mirroring, replication, and log shipping.
But replication does not require turning the VM on, soooo.... replication is an exception to the turning on rule?
The thing is this... that document is from 2004 and is not in the context of Hyper-V or VM replication. But I don't see anything else to go by, because everything else is in the context of the Software Assurance "disaster recovery" benefit.
All we can do is is assume, because nothing is clear. Is VM replication considered a warm backup? Is it an OSE? Is it an OSE that needs licensed?
I'm right in the middle of it all. I honestly don't care, because I either replicate SA-binded VMs, or to a DC hypervisor... so I'm covered by licensing anyways. But in the weird cases where people aren't using appropriate licensing... who knows.
I can side with Scott easily, and i can also not side with Scott easily. It depends on how you view it all. Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
But we found a matching one from 2016 that states all the same stuff.
So...
Warm backups are those which are turned on periodically to receive backups of data from the production servers. For example, warm backups are used in mirroring, replication, and log-shipping scenarios.
It mentions replication specifically. But we all know VM replicas are never turned on perodically in order to be updated.
I really don't think this applies, after reading it a few more times.
This is not Hyper-V Replication This is application replication.
Care to expand to what you're driving at?
An application within a server (or VM). This means you woudl need to power up the replica server in order to receive the replicate data.
Well if that's truly the case, then by all means we can use Hyper-V Replication to create replicas/backups on another Hyper-V server with no concerns about licensing. - right?
Correct, as long as it is ONLY for the replica and not to spin it up / HA.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
It got uglier with personal attacks....
I didn't attack anyone, just stating the facts of what a SBC is, and what is included with a hardware purchase.
I don't get it.
OP bought a RP package and wants to know what his options are.
Depending on the he got with the thing in the package, determines what he can do out-of-the-box.
In his case, it depends on what came pre-loaded on the SD card.
Looks like what OS came pre-loaded on the SD card includes like any programming language he wants.
Yeah, but he never mentioned that part. He asked solely about what the hardware would do on its own.
-
@dbeato said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dbeato said in I can't even:
It got uglier with personal attacks....
I didn't attack anyone, just stating the facts of what a SBC is, and what is included with a hardware purchase.
I don't get it.
OP bought a RP package and wants to know what his options are.
Depending on the he got with the thing in the package, determines what he can do out-of-the-box.
In his case, it depends on what came pre-loaded on the SD card.
Looks like what OS came pre-loaded on the SD card includes like any programming language he wants.
Yes, we just need to know what he knows or wants to learn.
Which I don't think we ever found out. People decided to condescend to him and answer incorrectly to get their points and the thread died off.
-
This is just tooooooooo stupid for it to go in the normal non-it news thread.
Man 'cements microwave to head'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-42271150But then it does highlight the type of people out there nowadays thanks to YouTube:face_with_stuck-out_tongue_closed_eyes: :face_with_stuck-out_tongue_closed_eyes:
-
@hobbit666 "The fire service said the mixture had been poured around the man's head, which was protected by a plastic bag"
U'mm they're called cement boots.
All you need is 1, and then jump off the nearest bridge. . .
-
LIterally, with the exception of Gary's one post pointing out casually that people don't know what they are talking about, every single post in this thread, including the OP's, makes no sense whatsoever and no one seems to know anything about virtualization, Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows. The lack of common sense, basic technology information, basic licensing, or common products is insane. How can so many people, giving so much advice, not even know what products they are talking about?
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096165-windows-server-2016-licensing
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
LIterally, with the exception of Gary's one post pointing out casually that people don't know what they are talking about, every single post in this thread, including the OP's, makes no sense whatsoever and no one seems to know anything about virtualization, Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows. The lack of common sense, basic technology information, basic licensing, or common products is insane. How can so many people, giving so much advice, not even know what products they are talking about?
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096165-windows-server-2016-licensing
I don't see how you can keep posting the same thing over and over again. It's really frustrating, especially with the abundance of good information a simple Google search can turn up.
And when every single reply is a bad one (not yours), I don't even feel like stepping in. It just seems like so much effort.
I suppose that if I would benefit from it somehow, then I would. But my online exposure serves no benefit.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
LIterally, with the exception of Gary's one post pointing out casually that people don't know what they are talking about, every single post in this thread, including the OP's, makes no sense whatsoever and no one seems to know anything about virtualization, Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows. The lack of common sense, basic technology information, basic licensing, or common products is insane. How can so many people, giving so much advice, not even know what products they are talking about?
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096165-windows-server-2016-licensing
I don't see how you can keep posting the same thing over and over again. It's really frustrating, especially with the abundance of good information a simple Google search can turn up.
And when every single reply is a bad one (not yours), I don't even feel like stepping in. It just seems like so much effort.
I suppose that if I would benefit from it somehow, then I would. But my online exposure serves no benefit.
I did, however, feel the need to promote my art.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
LIterally, with the exception of Gary's one post pointing out casually that people don't know what they are talking about, every single post in this thread, including the OP's, makes no sense whatsoever and no one seems to know anything about virtualization, Hyper-V, VMware, or Windows. The lack of common sense, basic technology information, basic licensing, or common products is insane. How can so many people, giving so much advice, not even know what products they are talking about?
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096165-windows-server-2016-licensing
I don't see how you can keep posting the same thing over and over again. It's really frustrating, especially with the abundance of good information a simple Google search can turn up.
And when every single reply is a bad one (not yours), I don't even feel like stepping in. It just seems like so much effort.
I suppose that if I would benefit from it somehow, then I would. But my online exposure serves no benefit.
I did, however, feel the need to promote my art.
Yeah, nice little visio there lol.
