question about setting up a new domain controller
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
This is very freaking frustrating. I know I need to sit down and re-read how server licensing works so I make sure I understand it. I should also find someone who can help me with this too..
Easiest to ask in ML. But @NTG has been doing this for a long time. As has @Bundy-Associates and others in the community. Licensing is quick and easy, not something you need more than a thread for. And sometimes that turns up good info about licensing that someone knows a trick to.
ok. Thanks Scott. I appreciate the help.
The only issue I have asking for help here, it seems, is that threads often times get deviated because people immediately start questioning why things are the way they are in an environment. I don't mind that so much, and I appreciate the valuable input, but sometimes it's really frustrating when it's every little thing that's being questioned. And I'm sure that if I list my licensing needs, people will start questioning why I need this or that when I should be doing it some other way.. That being said, i will still make a post at some point here..
Well, look at it this way... it was only by questioning every little thing that made me ask why your users weren't licensed to use Windows Server. What seems like "questioning every little thing" is how IT works. You can't do IT without that. If we didn't, we'd answer what is asked rather than what is meant or what is needed.
Sometimes you really do know exactly what you need and why and the extra questions are annoying. But when that is the case, generally answering the questions is quick and simple. If you don't already know the answers, then probably you aren't confident (or shouldn't be) as to what you are asking and all the clarifications and questioning are far more valuable than the answer to the initial questions.
Yeah, I understand. I really shouldn't complain... you guys really help me out a lot. I've learned so much that I've realized that I almost don't know anything at all..
Even when an individual question ends up being something that you already knew and had right, it's likely not a wasted conversation. Seeing the things that people are thinking, considering, or worried about can be educational even if it doesn't apply to you at the time. It also teaches you, in theory, ways to present information more completely from the beginning so as to make the process more straightforward.
In many cases, the reason that so many questions get asked is because there is either information missing or, and this is always tough to deal with, something seems likely to be a mistake based on nothing more than trends, and people worry that you will make it. This last one is tough because it feels like people are implying that you've missed something when nothing you've said shows that you have; but we all know that these things get missed so often, that we can't skip over mentioning it. And the logic is, if you realized how often that mistake is made, and you knew that you had it right, you'd mention why to speed things up.
Example:
I want to deploy RAID 5 on these old cheap 8TB SATA drives on a Drobo for our production server. What block size do I use?
If you post that alone, you will get endless explanations telling you to stop now and not to continue no matter what.
But, had you started with "I'm trying to induce failures to test how drives die with UREs, so I'm doing something dangerous on purpose" or "my boss is a moron and is forcing me to do this idiotic thing, but I can't talk him out of it" it would tell us both that you understood that this was crazy or unusual; and it would tell us that you had a reason that is nuts, but real, and needs to be followed regardless of the sanity or likeliness.
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
This is very freaking frustrating. I know I need to sit down and re-read how server licensing works so I make sure I understand it. I should also find someone who can help me with this too..
Easiest to ask in ML. But @NTG has been doing this for a long time. As has @Bundy-Associates and others in the community. Licensing is quick and easy, not something you need more than a thread for. And sometimes that turns up good info about licensing that someone knows a trick to.
ok. Thanks Scott. I appreciate the help.
The only issue I have asking for help here, it seems, is that threads often times get deviated because people immediately start questioning why things are the way they are in an environment. I don't mind that so much, and I appreciate the valuable input, but sometimes it's really frustrating when it's every little thing that's being questioned. And I'm sure that if I list my licensing needs, people will start questioning why I need this or that when I should be doing it some other way.. That being said, i will still make a post at some point here..
Well, look at it this way... it was only by questioning every little thing that made me ask why your users weren't licensed to use Windows Server. What seems like "questioning every little thing" is how IT works. You can't do IT without that. If we didn't, we'd answer what is asked rather than what is meant or what is needed.
Sometimes you really do know exactly what you need and why and the extra questions are annoying. But when that is the case, generally answering the questions is quick and simple. If you don't already know the answers, then probably you aren't confident (or shouldn't be) as to what you are asking and all the clarifications and questioning are far more valuable than the answer to the initial questions.
Yeah, I understand. I really shouldn't complain... you guys really help me out a lot. I've learned so much that I've realized that I almost don't know anything at all..
Even when an individual question ends up being something that you already knew and had right, it's likely not a wasted conversation. Seeing the things that people are thinking, considering, or worried about can be educational even if it doesn't apply to you at the time. It also teaches you, in theory, ways to present information more completely from the beginning so as to make the process more straightforward.
In many cases, the reason that so many questions get asked is because there is either information missing or, and this is always tough to deal with, something seems likely to be a mistake based on nothing more than trends, and people worry that you will make it. This last one is tough because it feels like people are implying that you've missed something when nothing you've said shows that you have; but we all know that these things get missed so often, that we can't skip over mentioning it. And the logic is, if you realized how often that mistake is made, and you knew that you had it right, you'd mention why to speed things up.
Example:
I want to deploy RAID 5 on these old cheap 8TB SATA drives on a Drobo for our production server. What block size do I use?
If you post that alone, you will get endless explanations telling you to stop now and not to continue no matter what.
But, had you started with "I'm trying to induce failures to test how drives die with UREs, so I'm doing something dangerous on purpose" or "my boss is a moron and is forcing me to do this idiotic thing, but I can't talk him out of it" it would tell us both that you understood that this was crazy or unusual; and it would tell us that you had a reason that is nuts, but real, and needs to be followed regardless of the sanity or likeliness.
lmao.. my sides
Yeah, I've learned that it's all in how you ask the question, but kinda I suck at asking questions in an effective way..
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
Ok, that makes sense, but why do we have to license users again for adding the RDS role? Would I need to license all of them again if I added any other role?
RDS isn't a role, that's not what you are licensing. I mean, it IS a role, but the license isn't for the role. The license is for multi-user access to the desktop - regardless of the role. The same licenses are needed even if you don't use the role; even if you use a third party product like Citrix XenDesktop. Normal Windows Server licensing is restricted to one user per machine - this applies to both server and desktop. You may have a second user on at the same time solely as an admin task user only supporting the system, never doing work.
RDS lets you use the Server as a desktop for more than one user. For all intents and purposes, this is an application. If you think of it in that way, RDS CALs are no different than Exchange CALs or SQL Server CALs. These are all applications that require their own application level CALs. Same goes for third party products. Oracle Databases, SAP ERPs, etc. all needs CALs for their users on top of the operating system licensing.
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
This is very freaking frustrating. I know I need to sit down and re-read how server licensing works so I make sure I understand it. I should also find someone who can help me with this too..
Easiest to ask in ML. But @NTG has been doing this for a long time. As has @Bundy-Associates and others in the community. Licensing is quick and easy, not something you need more than a thread for. And sometimes that turns up good info about licensing that someone knows a trick to.
ok. Thanks Scott. I appreciate the help.
The only issue I have asking for help here, it seems, is that threads often times get deviated because people immediately start questioning why things are the way they are in an environment. I don't mind that so much, and I appreciate the valuable input, but sometimes it's really frustrating when it's every little thing that's being questioned. And I'm sure that if I list my licensing needs, people will start questioning why I need this or that when I should be doing it some other way.. That being said, i will still make a post at some point here..
Well, look at it this way... it was only by questioning every little thing that made me ask why your users weren't licensed to use Windows Server. What seems like "questioning every little thing" is how IT works. You can't do IT without that. If we didn't, we'd answer what is asked rather than what is meant or what is needed.
Sometimes you really do know exactly what you need and why and the extra questions are annoying. But when that is the case, generally answering the questions is quick and simple. If you don't already know the answers, then probably you aren't confident (or shouldn't be) as to what you are asking and all the clarifications and questioning are far more valuable than the answer to the initial questions.
Yeah, I understand. I really shouldn't complain... you guys really help me out a lot. I've learned so much that I've realized that I almost don't know anything at all..
Even when an individual question ends up being something that you already knew and had right, it's likely not a wasted conversation. Seeing the things that people are thinking, considering, or worried about can be educational even if it doesn't apply to you at the time. It also teaches you, in theory, ways to present information more completely from the beginning so as to make the process more straightforward.
In many cases, the reason that so many questions get asked is because there is either information missing or, and this is always tough to deal with, something seems likely to be a mistake based on nothing more than trends, and people worry that you will make it. This last one is tough because it feels like people are implying that you've missed something when nothing you've said shows that you have; but we all know that these things get missed so often, that we can't skip over mentioning it. And the logic is, if you realized how often that mistake is made, and you knew that you had it right, you'd mention why to speed things up.
Example:
I want to deploy RAID 5 on these old cheap 8TB SATA drives on a Drobo for our production server. What block size do I use?
If you post that alone, you will get endless explanations telling you to stop now and not to continue no matter what.
But, had you started with "I'm trying to induce failures to test how drives die with UREs, so I'm doing something dangerous on purpose" or "my boss is a moron and is forcing me to do this idiotic thing, but I can't talk him out of it" it would tell us both that you understood that this was crazy or unusual; and it would tell us that you had a reason that is nuts, but real, and needs to be followed regardless of the sanity or likeliness.
lmao.. my sides
Yeah, I've learned that it's all in how you ask the question, but kinda I suck at asking questions in an effective way..
That's why looking to see how we respond is a good learning system. But I wrote a guy long, long ago, too...
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
Would I need to license all of them again if I added any other role?
No, that one is unique as "roles" go. Other apps, yes. Other roles, no.
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
So, no more user CALs after the first server.. but what about server CALs? Do I need to add server CALs for each user for each server?
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
Ok, that makes sense, but why do we have to license users again for adding the RDS role? Would I need to license all of them again if I added any other role?
RDS isn't a role, that's not what you are licensing. I mean, it IS a role, but the license isn't for the role. The license is for multi-user access to the desktop - regardless of the role. The same licenses are needed even if you don't use the role; even if you use a third party product like Citrix XenDesktop. Normal Windows Server licensing is restricted to one user per machine - this applies to both server and desktop. You may have a second user on at the same time solely as an admin task user only supporting the system, never doing work.
RDS lets you use the Server as a desktop for more than one user. For all intents and purposes, this is an application. If you think of it in that way, RDS CALs are no different than Exchange CALs or SQL Server CALs. These are all applications that require their own application level CALs. Same goes for third party products. Oracle Databases, SAP ERPs, etc. all needs CALs for their users on top of the operating system licensing.
Alright, I think I get it then.. using the server as a file server obviously wouldn't be an app, but adding something like SQL would.
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
So, no more user CALs after the first server.. but what about server CALs? Do I need to add server CALs for each user for each server?
No, the users are licensed for any number of servers of equal or lesser version. I.e. you assign one Windows User CAL to yourself, you are allowed to connect to an unlimited number of Windows Servers at the or lesser version number that your company owns.
This would not grant you rights to use servers belong to another company. -
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
Ok, that makes sense, but why do we have to license users again for adding the RDS role? Would I need to license all of them again if I added any other role?
RDS isn't a role, that's not what you are licensing. I mean, it IS a role, but the license isn't for the role. The license is for multi-user access to the desktop - regardless of the role. The same licenses are needed even if you don't use the role; even if you use a third party product like Citrix XenDesktop. Normal Windows Server licensing is restricted to one user per machine - this applies to both server and desktop. You may have a second user on at the same time solely as an admin task user only supporting the system, never doing work.
RDS lets you use the Server as a desktop for more than one user. For all intents and purposes, this is an application. If you think of it in that way, RDS CALs are no different than Exchange CALs or SQL Server CALs. These are all applications that require their own application level CALs. Same goes for third party products. Oracle Databases, SAP ERPs, etc. all needs CALs for their users on top of the operating system licensing.
Alright, I think I get it then.. using the server as a file server obviously wouldn't be an app, but adding something like SQL would.
Correct, SQL has it's own licensing. They had two licensing models that last time I looked. Processor (probably Core by now) and user. If you license per processor/core, then you get unlimited users connecting, if you license per user, you need the number of user licenses to cover all connecting users.
Exchange is purely user based, there is no processor/core licensing. If you have 80 users, you need 80 Exchange CALs, plus the Exchange server license itself, and the WIndows Server license that Exchange is installed upon, and the Windows CALS that let you connect to the Windows server.. see how it all builds on itself?
Now in theses case, if you already had the WIndows Server CALs, then you wouldn't need additional Windows Server CALs just because you added Exchange, you'd only need the Exchange parts.
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
So, no more user CALs after the first server.. but what about server CALs? Do I need to add server CALs for each user for each server?
Servers don't have CALs. Servers need a Server license, users of servers need User CALs.
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
Ok, that makes sense, but why do we have to license users again for adding the RDS role? Would I need to license all of them again if I added any other role?
RDS isn't a role, that's not what you are licensing. I mean, it IS a role, but the license isn't for the role. The license is for multi-user access to the desktop - regardless of the role. The same licenses are needed even if you don't use the role; even if you use a third party product like Citrix XenDesktop. Normal Windows Server licensing is restricted to one user per machine - this applies to both server and desktop. You may have a second user on at the same time solely as an admin task user only supporting the system, never doing work.
RDS lets you use the Server as a desktop for more than one user. For all intents and purposes, this is an application. If you think of it in that way, RDS CALs are no different than Exchange CALs or SQL Server CALs. These are all applications that require their own application level CALs. Same goes for third party products. Oracle Databases, SAP ERPs, etc. all needs CALs for their users on top of the operating system licensing.
Alright, I think I get it then.. using the server as a file server obviously wouldn't be an app, but adding something like SQL would.
Correct. Because you "add" SQL Server, the file server function is just part of the base system. RDS is the one exception to how that works because it is treated as an app but is really just licensing for a use case.
-
@dashrender said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
Ok, that makes sense, but why do we have to license users again for adding the RDS role? Would I need to license all of them again if I added any other role?
RDS isn't a role, that's not what you are licensing. I mean, it IS a role, but the license isn't for the role. The license is for multi-user access to the desktop - regardless of the role. The same licenses are needed even if you don't use the role; even if you use a third party product like Citrix XenDesktop. Normal Windows Server licensing is restricted to one user per machine - this applies to both server and desktop. You may have a second user on at the same time solely as an admin task user only supporting the system, never doing work.
RDS lets you use the Server as a desktop for more than one user. For all intents and purposes, this is an application. If you think of it in that way, RDS CALs are no different than Exchange CALs or SQL Server CALs. These are all applications that require their own application level CALs. Same goes for third party products. Oracle Databases, SAP ERPs, etc. all needs CALs for their users on top of the operating system licensing.
Alright, I think I get it then.. using the server as a file server obviously wouldn't be an app, but adding something like SQL would.
Correct, SQL has it's own licensing. They had two licensing models that last time I looked. Processor (probably Core by now) and user. If you license per processor/core, then you get unlimited users connecting, if you license per user, you need the number of user licenses to cover all connecting users.
Exchange is purely user based, there is no processor/core licensing. If you have 80 users, you need 80 Exchange CALs, plus the Exchange server license itself, and the WIndows Server license that Exchange is installed upon, and the Windows CALS that let you connect to the Windows server.. see how it all builds on itself?
Now in theses case, if you already had the WIndows Server CALs, then you wouldn't need additional Windows Server CALs just because you added Exchange, you'd only need the Exchange parts.
Right, basically think of SQL Server, Exchange, Oracle DB, SAP ERP, whatever, all as individual products. That some come from third parties and some come from Microsoft is irrelevant, they are just apps that need their own licensing. Each can license however it sees fit, often there are multiple licensing strategies for people to choose from.
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
CDW has no techs, only sales. So you can't use those services.
Maybe I got lucky a few times in speaking with the right person.
The biggest question is... how do you know that you got lucky? If a sales person is really effective, they make you feel like you got good advice, even when getting sold to.
It is definitely possible and may have happened in my licensing situation. As for my printer situation, I feel I received good advice because I already knew the printer specs I needed but decided to use them to do my hunting. (You may or may not know how hard it is to find a good printer with an envelope feeder. Use to be easy) I verified the model they suggested vs others and it fit perfectly.
-
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
CDW has no techs, only sales. So you can't use those services.
Maybe I got lucky a few times in speaking with the right person.
The biggest question is... how do you know that you got lucky? If a sales person is really effective, they make you feel like you got good advice, even when getting sold to.
It is definitely possible and may have happened in my licensing situation. As for my printer situation, I feel I received good advice because I already knew the printer specs I needed but decided to use them to do my hunting. (You may or may not know how hard it is to find a good printer with an envelope feeder. Use to be easy) I verified the model they suggested vs others and it fit perfectly.
Once you set the parameters, having a sales person do some hunting for you is fine. But then it's up to you to take those options they present and do your own research on them to make sure they fit your environment.
But don't forget, they are sales. It's completely likely that they only presented options that the top of the profit margin list to present. So while they might be usable/workable options, it's still very possible, likely even that you won't know about the best cost effective option because, as sales people, their goal is to make as much money as they can.
If you hired a consultant and paid them to find the best solution for you, Then you can be more assured the best options they could locate in a reasonable billing amount of time have been presented.
-
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
CDW has no techs, only sales. So you can't use those services.
Maybe I got lucky a few times in speaking with the right person.
The biggest question is... how do you know that you got lucky? If a sales person is really effective, they make you feel like you got good advice, even when getting sold to.
It is definitely possible and may have happened in my licensing situation. As for my printer situation, I feel I received good advice because I already knew the printer specs I needed but decided to use them to do my hunting. (You may or may not know how hard it is to find a good printer with an envelope feeder. Use to be easy) I verified the model they suggested vs others and it fit perfectly.
That kind of stuff they are good at. What is hard to know is if you were told the best printer for your needs, or just the one with the best profits for them. They may have found several that met your needs, but failed to mention the lower cost ones. That's how they are most well known for earning their money. Not by not finding what you need, but by steering you away from what suits you best.
-
@dashrender said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@pmoncho said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
CDW has no techs, only sales. So you can't use those services.
Maybe I got lucky a few times in speaking with the right person.
The biggest question is... how do you know that you got lucky? If a sales person is really effective, they make you feel like you got good advice, even when getting sold to.
It is definitely possible and may have happened in my licensing situation. As for my printer situation, I feel I received good advice because I already knew the printer specs I needed but decided to use them to do my hunting. (You may or may not know how hard it is to find a good printer with an envelope feeder. Use to be easy) I verified the model they suggested vs others and it fit perfectly.
Once you set the parameters, having a sales person do some hunting for you is fine. But then it's up to you to take those options they present and do your own research on them to make sure they fit your environment.
If they don't fit, in theory you can just return it. It's having them only tell you high profit options that is the problem. If you aren't creating your own list, you pretty much assume that the most cost effective options will be hidden.
We see this literally daily on Spiceworks. Here is what it sounds like...
"I asked my vendors to present PBX options for me, sounds like Shoretel and Cisco are the best options."
Really... because FreePBX meets their needs really well, for free, but none of the vendors happen to mention that this should be a free project, did they? The degree to which they hide the best option is often pretty extreme. And even going to multiple, or even every vendor doesn't help. None are going to mention the free options.
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
So, no more user CALs after the first server.. but what about server CALs? Do I need to add server CALs for each user for each server?
Servers don't have CALs. Servers need a Server license, users of servers need User CALs.
WHAT?? But you literally asked me in an earlier reply, "No Server CALs listed, you already have those for 2016?"
So I just need the SERVER LICENSE. The USER CALS. And the [insert app that needs CAL] CAL. That's all right??
Sorry, I am sick as a dog and ON cough medicin right now probably should go home
-
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
I did have to call and ask for help understanding the necessary licenses needed to make sure I was getting properly licensed.
So the proper places to get this advice is from IT folks, not sales people. This is no different than any other IT guidance. For something simple like this, you should always have an ITSP to help with this stuff, one quick email would have sorted it out in seconds. But you also could just ask in ML.
For this you need...
- One licensed server (the 8 two core licenses listed, assuming you have no more than sixteen cores on the box.)
- 80 Windows Server 2016 User CALs to be able to use the server
- 80 RDS User CALs to be able to use the terminal server feature (called RDS)
So do I only need one User CAL per user in my environment, for the highest version of Windows Server that I have?
That is correct. If you are adding Windows Server 2016, then with the first server that you add you need one User CAL for every user in the company (unless you can make a great case that someone could never use any Windows resource ever.) So if you have 100 employees, and one server, you need 100 CALs. Add three more servers, no more CALs. Add one hundred new servers next year, still no more CALs. Each user needs one CAL to cover what they use and no more. Remember, you are licensing the USER, not the server, and since the user is still just one person, they need just one license.
So, no more user CALs after the first server.. but what about server CALs? Do I need to add server CALs for each user for each server?
Servers don't have CALs. Servers need a Server license, users of servers need User CALs.
WHAT?? But you literally asked me in an earlier reply, "No Server CALs listed, you already have those for 2016?"
Right, we call them that. But those are the User CALs, User CALs for accessing the Windows Server infrastructure. Those were the ones we covered, then you asked about CALs just for the server after that.
Yes, I worded it poorly. But everyone calls them Server CALs. But they are the ones we had just covered.
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
This is very freaking frustrating. I know I need to sit down and re-read how server licensing works so I make sure I understand it. I should also find someone who can help me with this too..
Easiest to ask in ML. But @NTG has been doing this for a long time. As has @Bundy-Associates and others in the community. Licensing is quick and easy, not something you need more than a thread for. And sometimes that turns up good info about licensing that someone knows a trick to.
ok. Thanks Scott. I appreciate the help.
The only issue I have asking for help here, it seems, is that threads often times get deviated because people immediately start questioning why things are the way they are in an environment. I don't mind that so much, and I appreciate the valuable input, but sometimes it's really frustrating when it's every little thing that's being questioned. And I'm sure that if I list my licensing needs, people will start questioning why I need this or that when I should be doing it some other way.. That being said, i will still make a post at some point here..
Well, look at it this way... it was only by questioning every little thing that made me ask why your users weren't licensed to use Windows Server. What seems like "questioning every little thing" is how IT works. You can't do IT without that. If we didn't, we'd answer what is asked rather than what is meant or what is needed.
Sometimes you really do know exactly what you need and why and the extra questions are annoying. But when that is the case, generally answering the questions is quick and simple. If you don't already know the answers, then probably you aren't confident (or shouldn't be) as to what you are asking and all the clarifications and questioning are far more valuable than the answer to the initial questions.
Yeah, I understand. I really shouldn't complain... you guys really help me out a lot. I've learned so much that I've realized that I almost don't know anything at all..
Even when an individual question ends up being something that you already knew and had right, it's likely not a wasted conversation. Seeing the things that people are thinking, considering, or worried about can be educational even if it doesn't apply to you at the time. It also teaches you, in theory, ways to present information more completely from the beginning so as to make the process more straightforward.
In many cases, the reason that so many questions get asked is because there is either information missing or, and this is always tough to deal with, something seems likely to be a mistake based on nothing more than trends, and people worry that you will make it. This last one is tough because it feels like people are implying that you've missed something when nothing you've said shows that you have; but we all know that these things get missed so often, that we can't skip over mentioning it. And the logic is, if you realized how often that mistake is made, and you knew that you had it right, you'd mention why to speed things up.
Example:
I want to deploy RAID 5 on these old cheap 8TB SATA drives on a Drobo for our production server. What block size do I use?
If you post that alone, you will get endless explanations telling you to stop now and not to continue no matter what.
But, had you started with "I'm trying to induce failures to test how drives die with UREs, so I'm doing something dangerous on purpose" or "my boss is a moron and is forcing me to do this idiotic thing, but I can't talk him out of it" it would tell us both that you understood that this was crazy or unusual; and it would tell us that you had a reason that is nuts, but real, and needs to be followed regardless of the sanity or likeliness.
lmao.. my sides
Yeah, I've learned that it's all in how you ask the question, but kinda I suck at asking questions in an effective way..
That's why looking to see how we respond is a good learning system. But I wrote a guy long, long ago, too...
Here is someone just this morning, asking a question that they were way past the point of being lost on, but instead of backing up, included their "lostness" as part of their requirements.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/16088/step-back-when-asking-questions
-
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@scottalanmiller said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
@dave247 said in question about setting up a new domain controller:
This is very freaking frustrating. I know I need to sit down and re-read how server licensing works so I make sure I understand it. I should also find someone who can help me with this too..
Easiest to ask in ML. But @NTG has been doing this for a long time. As has @Bundy-Associates and others in the community. Licensing is quick and easy, not something you need more than a thread for. And sometimes that turns up good info about licensing that someone knows a trick to.
ok. Thanks Scott. I appreciate the help.
The only issue I have asking for help here, it seems, is that threads often times get deviated because people immediately start questioning why things are the way they are in an environment. I don't mind that so much, and I appreciate the valuable input, but sometimes it's really frustrating when it's every little thing that's being questioned. And I'm sure that if I list my licensing needs, people will start questioning why I need this or that when I should be doing it some other way.. That being said, i will still make a post at some point here..
Well, look at it this way... it was only by questioning every little thing that made me ask why your users weren't licensed to use Windows Server. What seems like "questioning every little thing" is how IT works. You can't do IT without that. If we didn't, we'd answer what is asked rather than what is meant or what is needed.
Sometimes you really do know exactly what you need and why and the extra questions are annoying. But when that is the case, generally answering the questions is quick and simple. If you don't already know the answers, then probably you aren't confident (or shouldn't be) as to what you are asking and all the clarifications and questioning are far more valuable than the answer to the initial questions.
Yeah, I understand. I really shouldn't complain... you guys really help me out a lot. I've learned so much that I've realized that I almost don't know anything at all..
Even when an individual question ends up being something that you already knew and had right, it's likely not a wasted conversation. Seeing the things that people are thinking, considering, or worried about can be educational even if it doesn't apply to you at the time. It also teaches you, in theory, ways to present information more completely from the beginning so as to make the process more straightforward.
In many cases, the reason that so many questions get asked is because there is either information missing or, and this is always tough to deal with, something seems likely to be a mistake based on nothing more than trends, and people worry that you will make it. This last one is tough because it feels like people are implying that you've missed something when nothing you've said shows that you have; but we all know that these things get missed so often, that we can't skip over mentioning it. And the logic is, if you realized how often that mistake is made, and you knew that you had it right, you'd mention why to speed things up.
Example:
I want to deploy RAID 5 on these old cheap 8TB SATA drives on a Drobo for our production server. What block size do I use?
If you post that alone, you will get endless explanations telling you to stop now and not to continue no matter what.
But, had you started with "I'm trying to induce failures to test how drives die with UREs, so I'm doing something dangerous on purpose" or "my boss is a moron and is forcing me to do this idiotic thing, but I can't talk him out of it" it would tell us both that you understood that this was crazy or unusual; and it would tell us that you had a reason that is nuts, but real, and needs to be followed regardless of the sanity or likeliness.
lmao.. my sides
Yeah, I've learned that it's all in how you ask the question, but kinda I suck at asking questions in an effective way..
That's why looking to see how we respond is a good learning system. But I wrote a guy long, long ago, too...
Here is someone just this morning, asking a question that they were way past the point of being lost on, but instead of backing up, included their "lostness" as part of their requirements.
https://mangolassi.it/topic/16088/step-back-when-asking-questions
Did you mean to post a link to Spiceworks?
