Why Install Hyper-V via Role Rather than Pure Hyper-V
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Getting into the details of the how/what/where/when/why of licensing, client management, and all of the peripheries associated is something to be had over a libation not a forum.
The problem there, is that this is critical to decision making around how Hyper-V is deployed. The fact remains that there is a risk to that deployment method and the only way to avoid it is to force tech and business decisions and not allow the customers the freedom to decide what is best for them (or for you to do the same on their behalf.) It's the absolute number one factor in any Hyper-V discussion. If that shouldn't be had over a forum, this implies that Hyper-V is so problematic that our field shouldn't be considering it because it's not a business factor like it should be.
I don't agree with that, I think Hyper-V is an acceptable business product. But that means that the factors involved with how to manage it must be able to be approached like any business decision - be weighing costs, risks, benefits, and so forth. Nothing "business" can be moved from forum to libation, that implies an emotional approach (hobby) rather than analytical (business.)
I'm not saying that there aren't reasons for both approaches. There are, certainly. What I'm saying is that they can be analyzed on a case by case bases using standard business decision making to determine which approach is appropriate for any given situation.
-
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
We have done well by them as have our clients/customers.
This is where it is difficult to say. Unless you've done this calculation taking this licensing into account, how can you or the customers know if the decisions were good?
I literally had a call an hour ago with a customer talking about this very thing (but related to email, not Hyper-V.) It's easy to say "this worked" in IT, but unless we evaluate "reasonable IT alternatives", we actually don't know if it "worked" in an IT context which requires a comparison against the alternatives. It's not enough to have functionality, you can get that without IT. It's getting a better decision process than you could get without good IT that makes it a success.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
@PhlipElder said in Hyper-V 2019 on a domain:
Getting into the details of the how/what/where/when/why of licensing, client management, and all of the peripheries associated is something to be had over a libation not a forum.
The problem there, is that this is critical to decision making around how Hyper-V is deployed. The fact remains that there is a risk to that deployment method and the only way to avoid it is to force tech and business decisions and not allow the customers the freedom to decide what is best for them (or for you to do the same on their behalf.) It's the absolute number one factor in any Hyper-V discussion. If that shouldn't be had over a forum, this implies that Hyper-V is so problematic that our field shouldn't be considering it because it's not a business factor like it should be.
I don't agree with that, I think Hyper-V is an acceptable business product. But that means that the factors involved with how to manage it must be able to be approached like any business decision - be weighing costs, risks, benefits, and so forth. Nothing "business" can be moved from forum to libation, that implies an emotional approach (hobby) rather than analytical (business.)
I'm not saying that there aren't reasons for both approaches. There are, certainly. What I'm saying is that they can be analyzed on a case by case bases using standard business decision making to determine which approach is appropriate for any given situation.
SAM, I am no longer going to answer or address any of these comments/opinions. They have happened before and frankly I'm done with them.
TTFN
-
@PhlipElder - do you require all your customers to buy SA? What if one of them says - no we don't want it?
Not having SA doesn't make them license illegal - it just means they can't move to the new version.
-
@Dashrender said in Why Install Hyper-V via Role Rather than Pure Hyper-V:
Not having SA doesn't make them license illegal - it just means they can't move to the new version.
...without buying it again. Which is implied, but needs to be said. Lots of shops commonly update, but not with SA, because they delay or skip versions. That's a common tactic and lots of shops like it because they stay legal and supported, but don't pay as much as SA. It can be a totally valid business decision because it saves money potentially and meets the specific business' need and allows for a sustainable maintenance plan.
It's pretty rare, I think, that that pans out in the big scope as the better approach. But it is legal, valid, and in limited settings the correct choice. The most common places for that is when versions are "locked" do to vendor obligations and updating the license wouldn't change what version can be deployed.
-
@PhlipElder you must realize the way you /your business or owners operate is the opposite of the best interest of everyone. Including you / your business and owners.
Forcing SA onto a client doesn't make sense, especially since the client may not ever want to upgrade.
Installing Windows server, and then the Hyper-v role is ass backwards as well, since by license the VM (as you can only have 2 installs of Standard on a box per license, without additional licenses) means that the 2 VM are bound to that box. And if that box dies, you need to purchase a new license for the new Hyper-V box.
(Someone correct me if I'm wrong about the above licensing )
Where as by installing Hyper-V and just assinging your license to that, do you gain license mobility.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Why Install Hyper-V via Role Rather than Pure Hyper-V:
Installing Windows server, and then the Hyper-v role is ass backwards as well, since by license the VM (as you can only have 2 installs of Standard on a box per license, without additional licenses) means that the 2 VM are bound to that box. And if that box dies, you need to purchase a new license for the new Hyper-V box.
They are bound the box equally either way. If the box dies, both VMs as well as the Hyper-V install can be moved. In either case, the two VMs are box bound and bound together. So that part is equal regardless of approach.
Now if you have more on the box and the box dies but you want some additional mobility options, then this would be more limiting.
-
Mobility limitation example...
Server 1: Hyper-V as role, two Windows VMs, many non-Windows VMs. (This is a common scenario we see.)
Then capacity gets high and you want to reshuffle workloads. A new server is purchased either as a replacement or as a load increase.
Now as long as the original box is running, the Windows VMs are stuck on it and cannot move. All other workloads are free to move wherever they make sense. It requires no licensing nor does it require any human overhead to consider how licensing is affected. But the Windows VMs are locked for no reason, simply reducing the flexibility of the solution. Putting a free Hyper-V install on another server would not free them up to move there.
-
This topic reminds me of every topic of someone attempting to justify their IPoD that they were sold.
-
Or this : https://smbitjournal.com/2014/07/it-worked-for-me/
Like who can honestly justify these decisions? You're burying your head in the sand and hoping nothing bad happens.
