VeeamOn 2017

scottalanmiller

@stacksofplates said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

MVPs claim that Microsoft sees NTFS as old and antiquated and wants everyone to move to ReFS. That's the first that I've heard any of that.

Not that specifically but that "class" I was in it was pretty much all ReFS and how it's so awesome...

They are raving about how this is a 64bit filesystem. Ha ha, we've been on 128bit for 13 years now!!

Obsolesce

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.

Well considering:

Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400
Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500

Let's do the math:

4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000
2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000

I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.

I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.

scottalanmiller

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.

Well considering:

Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400

Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500

Let's do the math:

4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000

2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000

I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.

I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.

Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.

scottalanmiller

After decades of the MVPs telling us how great NTFS is, suddenly there is a lot of MVP hate on NTFS. Suddenly Windows hasn't been reliable and was slow and all kinds of problems. Um....

scottalanmiller

ReFS is looking good, especially with v3.1, for a lot of things. But the sudden "NTFS is garbage never touch it" thing makes no sense.

Obsolesce

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.

Well considering:

Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400

Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500

Let's do the math:

4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000

2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000

I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.

I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.

Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.

Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.

But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.

Obsolesce

And if you are paying for 12 VMs, that's a datacenter license there anyways. You've basically just bought enough Standard licneses to pay for a DC.

I think this stuff should be considered much earlier than 12. Like half way, to prevent 6k from being wasted. But like you said, only if there's a reasonable chance for a need to climb closer to 12.

Of course it can go the other way around.. spending the extra money on a DC license you'd never need.

scottalanmiller

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.

Well considering:

Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400

Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500

Let's do the math:

4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000

2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000

I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.

I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.

Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.

Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.

But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.

Yeah, but that's not a good argument for investing in something. It's not about guaranteeing that it won't, because you defeat that argument by saying that you can't guarantee that it will (and will within a certain time frame.) Even going to 16 VMs makes sense to use Standard if you get the last batch of them long after the system going into production.

It's all about predictive license investing.

scottalanmiller

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

And if you are paying for 12 VMs, that's a datacenter license there anyways. You've basically just bought enough Standard licneses to pay for a DC.

I think this stuff should be considered much earlier than 12. Like half way, to prevent 6k from being wasted. But like you said, only if there's a reasonable chance for a need to climb closer to 12.

Of course it can go the other way around.. spending the extra money on a DC license you'd never need.

At 12, you'll still save money are raw licenses by going standard. But certainly you are right on that line where it would make sense for all of the other reasons, just ot not manage the licenses.

Obsolesce

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.

Well considering:

Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400

Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500

Let's do the math:

4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000

2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000

I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.

I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.

Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.

Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.

But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.

Yeah, but that's not a good argument for investing in something. It's not about guaranteeing that it won't, because you defeat that argument by saying that you can't guarantee that it will (and will within a certain time frame.) Even going to 16 VMs makes sense to use Standard if you get the last batch of them long after the system going into production.

It's all about predictive license investing.

Yeah that's true, good point.

In a given real environment it's a lot easier to determine if you should keep investing in Standard licenses than in a hypothetical environment.

scottalanmiller

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

@Tim_G said in VeeamOn 2017:

@scottalanmiller said in VeeamOn 2017:

OMG MVPs speaking should not be allowed. The fanboi aspects are really bad. They are denying things that Veeam said in other sessions to make MS look good. And saying that if you want more than 2 VMs on a server (instead of 13) that Datacenter is break even. Clearly they either don't know MS products well, or are getting a bit ridiculous on the promotion.

Well considering:

Windows Server 2016 Standard with SA: ~$1,400

Windows Server 2016 Datacenter with SA: ~$8,500

Let's do the math:

4x 2016 Standard VMs: ~$3,000

2016 Datacenter: ~$9,000

I don't see a reason for Datacenter until you start approaching 12 VMs. Depending on the environment, I'd maybe start to consider Datacenter licensing when hitting the 7th VM. Because if you get too far down the line, like let's say you've bought 12 VM's already. And only NOW decide to get Datacenter... well, you just paid double for Datacenter licensing. What do you do with the 6x standard licenses you no longer need after buying DC licensing? Maybe his logic is similar to that, but too extreme.

I'd certainly never consider DC licensing just after 2 VMs. That's actually ridiculous.

Yeah, I normally do it around 13. If you need 11 or 12 and there is ANY reasonable chance that you'll need or use more down the road, sure, makes sense. But if you never get to that 13th VM, it was a waste. Given, a small waste at that point.

Yes that only works if there's a guarantee you'll never hit that 13th VM. I suppose you can force it to be guaranteed by using a free OS going forward, if the software vendor requiring a new VM supports it.

But it's hard to guarantee 13 never comes around.

Yeah, but that's not a good argument for investing in something. It's not about guaranteeing that it won't, because you defeat that argument by saying that you can't guarantee that it will (and will within a certain time frame.) Even going to 16 VMs makes sense to use Standard if you get the last batch of them long after the system going into production.

It's all about predictive license investing.

Yeah that's true, good point.

In a given real environment it's a lot easier to determine if you should keep investing in Standard licenses than in a hypothetical environment.