Is the Time for VMware in the SMB Over?
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
How many SMBs have separate AD from File and Print?
I never put file and print services on domain controllers. I always want DCs to be DCs and nothing else. When you get combine setups like that its usually people running SBS or essentials. File and Print service can almost always go on the same server, no reason not to even with datacenter licensing.
Let's assume and SMB that has a single server license one a single VM host, also assume you have another application, heck, let's just say Spiceworks as an example - Would you spend an entire OSE for AD and put F/P and Spiceworks on the other OSE? Now toss WSUS in there, would you put F/P/WSUS and Spiceworks all on the same server? This does not make sense to me.
As long as you have more than one AD box (always my preference) I don't have any problem putting F/P on an AD box.
But you have two boxes, right? That's two VMs on Standard licensing on each. And that is just Windows.
So that is two for AD. That leaves two free. One for WSUS + F/P (WSUS is effectively a file server anyway) and one for applications. Seems like a logical segmentation to me that is easy to manage and keeps workloads separate where it makes sense and together where necessary.
Anything additional can be on Linux too without license limits. So web apps like MediaWiki could be there and not interfere with any other VMs too.
Why put AD and F/P together when their workloads do not match?
-
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
How many SMBs have separate AD from File and Print?
I never put file and print services on domain controllers. I always want DCs to be DCs and nothing else. When you get combine setups like that its usually people running SBS or essentials. File and Print service can almost always go on the same server, no reason not to even with datacenter licensing.
Let's assume and SMB that has a single server license one a single VM host, also assume you have another application, heck, let's just say Spiceworks as an example - Would you spend an entire OSE for AD and put F/P and Spiceworks on the other OSE? Now toss WSUS in there, would you put F/P/WSUS and Spiceworks all on the same server? This does not make sense to me.
As long as you have more than one AD box (always my preference) I don't have any problem putting F/P on an AD box.
DC on one box, File and Print on the other. Ditch Spiceworks and use something linux based or hosted. Spiceworks is too much of a resource hog to share anyway. Also why would web apps using windows?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Spiceworks you would not run remotely as it is a scanner but would move that to a desktop in house, generally.
I'm not sure you legally can run it from a desktop OS unless you have less than ten computer I know is what the EULA allowed in the XP days for connections. 7 and newer is either 10 or 20. Can't remember.
That's a different connection limit and I am not aware of any limit to the license that restricts the usage for these types of connections. The 10 connection limit on XP and the 20 connection limit on Vista and later is a "connection limit" and Spiceworks does not conflict with that at all, it doesn't even use those connections. Plus it reaches out, not in. So it doesn't apply anyway.
It applies to any connections it's part of the EULA. If you are using more than 10 it needs to be a server. It's to prevent people from using desktops OSes as server. SMBs are notirous for making CIFS shares on windows desktops instead of getting a file server and paying for CALs like they are suppose to.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
How many SMBs have separate AD from File and Print?
I never put file and print services on domain controllers. I always want DCs to be DCs and nothing else. When you get combine setups like that its usually people running SBS or essentials. File and Print service can almost always go on the same server, no reason not to even with datacenter licensing.
Let's assume and SMB that has a single server license one a single VM host, also assume you have another application, heck, let's just say Spiceworks as an example - Would you spend an entire OSE for AD and put F/P and Spiceworks on the other OSE? Now toss WSUS in there, would you put F/P/WSUS and Spiceworks all on the same server? This does not make sense to me.
As long as you have more than one AD box (always my preference) I don't have any problem putting F/P on an AD box.
DC on one box, File and Print on the other. Ditch Spiceworks and use something linux based or hosted. Spiceworks is too much of a resource hog to share anyway. Also why would web apps using windows?
Web apps?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
It applies to any connections it's part of the EULA. If you are using more than 10 it needs to be a server. It's to prevent people from using desktops OSes as server. SMBs are notirous for making CIFS shares on windows desktops instead of getting a file server and paying for CALs like they are suppose to.
It doesn't and can't. A single FTP activity can be more than ten connections. As can going to a website. It's specific types of connections inbound, not total network communications from the device. If it were, it's a useless OS with no purpose. I have probably hundreds of connections going on right now just browsing the web.
Think about it, just using PuTTY alone would cause issues let alone streaming music, using the web, etc. Outlook might violate the EULA on its own, in that case.
That's just not what the connection limit refers to.
-
@Dashrender said:
Web apps?
He means modern enterprise apps. Any kind. Basically all modern apps are built with web interfaces. Anything meant for business, anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
It applies to any connections it's part of the EULA. If you are using more than 10 it needs to be a server. It's to prevent people from using desktops OSes as server. SMBs are notirous for making CIFS shares on windows desktops instead of getting a file server and paying for CALs like they are suppose to.
It doesn't and can't. A single FTP activity can be more than ten connections. As can going to a website. It's specific types of connections inbound, not total network communications from the device. If it were, it's a useless OS with no purpose. I have probably hundreds of connections going on right now just browsing the web.
Think about it, just using PuTTY alone would cause issues let alone streaming music, using the web, etc. Outlook might violate the EULA on its own, in that case.
That's just not what the connection limit refers to.
Yes, it's all inbound but Spiceworks is going Inbound if you use the agent.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Spiceworks you would not run remotely as it is a scanner but would move that to a desktop in house, generally.
I'm not sure you legally can run it from a desktop OS unless you have less than ten computer I know is what the EULA allowed in the XP days for connections. 7 and newer is either 10 or 20. Can't remember.
That's a different connection limit and I am not aware of any limit to the license that restricts the usage for these types of connections. The 10 connection limit on XP and the 20 connection limit on Vista and later is a "connection limit" and Spiceworks does not conflict with that at all, it doesn't even use those connections. Plus it reaches out, not in. So it doesn't apply anyway.
It applies to any connections it's part of the EULA. If you are using more than 10 it needs to be a server. It's to prevent people from using desktops OSes as server. SMBs are notirous for making CIFS shares on windows desktops instead of getting a file server and paying for CALs like they are suppose to.
Here is Microsoft's explanation:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/314882
This is INBOUND (server) connections only. In the case of Spiceworks, you would be limited to ten simultaneous connections which would likely be around 50-100 users as HTTP connections are stateless and only exist during the moment of transfer. In Apache terms this would mean a maximum of ten workers at a time, which is enough to service a crazy number of users. Spiceworks scanning is reaching out, none of those connections count against this limit.
In MangoLassi terms, this entire site works off of a single inbound connection at a time (only one thread.) So Windows XP would be able to run this community, at far about its current maximum usage, more than ten times based on connection limits. Even though we have hundreds of users, there is only one connection at a time the way that it is currently set up.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
It applies to any connections it's part of the EULA. If you are using more than 10 it needs to be a server. It's to prevent people from using desktops OSes as server. SMBs are notirous for making CIFS shares on windows desktops instead of getting a file server and paying for CALs like they are suppose to.
It doesn't and can't. A single FTP activity can be more than ten connections. As can going to a website. It's specific types of connections inbound, not total network communications from the device. If it were, it's a useless OS with no purpose. I have probably hundreds of connections going on right now just browsing the web.
Think about it, just using PuTTY alone would cause issues let alone streaming music, using the web, etc. Outlook might violate the EULA on its own, in that case.
That's just not what the connection limit refers to.
Yes, it's all inbound but Spiceworks is going Inbound if you use the agent.
Ah okay, if you use the Agent. The agent is acting like an outside user. Still, that would likely be thousands of agents without a problem if you didn't tune the system for it and many, many more if you turned down the checkin frequency. And with Windows now having the connection limit doubled it is that much better. HTTP just isn't connection heavy so the ten or twenty limit really gives you a lot of breathing room.
And the bigger your pipe, the faster a connection is serviced so the quicker it gets dropped. So on a LAN you can do more than on the WAN.
The limit is really designed to cripple Windows desktop as a file server because a CIFS connection stays connected basically indefinitely. A mapped drive to a Windows machine maintains the connection. So what might be 10,000 users on a web app might be 10 users on CIFS by the same limit.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Spiceworks you would not run remotely as it is a scanner but would move that to a desktop in house, generally.
I'm not sure you legally can run it from a desktop OS unless you have less than ten computer I know is what the EULA allowed in the XP days for connections. 7 and newer is either 10 or 20. Can't remember.
That's a different connection limit and I am not aware of any limit to the license that restricts the usage for these types of connections. The 10 connection limit on XP and the 20 connection limit on Vista and later is a "connection limit" and Spiceworks does not conflict with that at all, it doesn't even use those connections. Plus it reaches out, not in. So it doesn't apply anyway.
It applies to any connections it's part of the EULA. If you are using more than 10 it needs to be a server. It's to prevent people from using desktops OSes as server. SMBs are notirous for making CIFS shares on windows desktops instead of getting a file server and paying for CALs like they are suppose to.
Here is Microsoft's explanation:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/314882
This is INBOUND (server) connections only. In the case of Spiceworks, you would be limited to ten simultaneous connections which would likely be around 50-100 users as HTTP connections are stateless and only exist during the moment of transfer. In Apache terms this would mean a maximum of ten workers at a time, which is enough to service a crazy number of users. Spiceworks scanning is reaching out, none of those connections count against this limit.
In MangoLassi terms, this entire site works off of a single inbound connection at a time (only one thread.) So Windows XP would be able to run this community, at far about its current maximum usage, more than ten times based on connection limits. Even though we have hundreds of users, there is only one connection at a time the way that it is currently set up.
It doesn't just use HTTP connections though if you do scanning with agent based. It does Inbound connections a port the agent uses. The agent reports back to spiceworks at specific times.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
It doesn't just use HTTP connections though if you do scanning with agent based. It does Inbound connections a port the agent uses. The agent reports back to spiceworks at specific times.
Last time that I used it the agent only got told about the web port, no additional port was used. Since we were opening the firewall, it was pretty easy to tell that no other port was being used. If it does that, it is new.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
When I did the math Office came out to be about the same when looking at an Office 365 subscription then when purchasing outright, which is why we are moving new users and updated computers to O365, may be worth looking into for you.
What were you comparing? $12/mth/user for O365 vs buying Pro Plus with SA ($765 first 3 years, $300 every three years after that?)
This math seems to show that as long as you stay on SA, outright purchasing is cheaper.
It is only $12/month/user if you plan on hosting Exchange in house, if you don't and move that to the O365 as well then you are only paying $7/month/user for that Office Subscription (with Outlook).
Either way we weren't doing SA (not my decision) so I was factoring in the cost of new license every 5 years to stay current.
$7 on O365 includes Outlook? hmm... I was unaware. I thought if you wanted Outlook with O365 you had to pay $20/month/user ($12 for Office and the rest toward email and the other O365 services).
Sorry meant to post this earlier. https://products.office.com/en-us/business/office-365-business-premium Only up to 300 users though so you may be in a different tier? It also includes Sharepoint and Skype For Business/Lync (Which may actually detract from the value). It also includes OdFB if you have a use for it. Oh.... it also includes Exchange Online, which is that $4/month/user calculation I was mentioned earlier.
-
You can get it without Skype for Business, but it will cost more
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
When I did the math Office came out to be about the same when looking at an Office 365 subscription then when purchasing outright, which is why we are moving new users and updated computers to O365, may be worth looking into for you.
What were you comparing? $12/mth/user for O365 vs buying Pro Plus with SA ($765 first 3 years, $300 every three years after that?)
This math seems to show that as long as you stay on SA, outright purchasing is cheaper.
It is only $12/month/user if you plan on hosting Exchange in house, if you don't and move that to the O365 as well then you are only paying $7/month/user for that Office Subscription (with Outlook).
Either way we weren't doing SA (not my decision) so I was factoring in the cost of new license every 5 years to stay current.
$7 on O365 includes Outlook? hmm... I was unaware. I thought if you wanted Outlook with O365 you had to pay $20/month/user ($12 for Office and the rest toward email and the other O365 services).
Sorry meant to post this earlier. https://products.office.com/en-us/business/office-365-business-premium Only up to 300 users though so you may be in a different tier? It also includes Sharepoint and Skype For Business/Lync (Which may actually detract from the value). It also includes OdFB if you have a use for it. Oh.... it also includes Exchange Online, which is that $4/month/user calculation I was mentioned earlier.
I know they have gone through many revisions on the O365 plans. I don't need more than 300 users (only need 88) so that would work for me.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You can get it without Skype for Business, but it will cost more
LOL I think I'll just skip using a product versus paying more.
-
Even just knowing it is there will make you feel dirty.
-
With 2012R2, MS is coming very close. And while you do need SCCM to manage a larger Hyper-V deployment, it can still come out cheaper than ESXi. I just did the math. I have 30 sockets of vSphere Enterprise. I license WIndows Datacenter anyway, so that is not a cost. If I was do do it over, it would cost me half in SCCM licenses for the same infrastructure as it does on vSphere licenses.
As far as moving to the cloud, Reliable, fast connectivity and storage ramp up pretty quickly.
-
@ashern welcome to the community!
-
@AsherN said in Is the Time for VMware in the SMB Over?:
With 2012R2, MS is coming very close. And while you do need SCCM to manage a larger Hyper-V deployment, it can still come out cheaper than ESXi. I just did the math. I have 30 sockets of vSphere Enterprise. I license WIndows Datacenter anyway, so that is not a cost. If I was do do it over, it would cost me half in SCCM licenses for the same infrastructure as it does on vSphere licenses.
As far as moving to the cloud, Reliable, fast connectivity and storage ramp up pretty quickly.
And now Hyper-V 2016 is right around the corner and XenServer 7 are both out. And with the last year's learning about XenOrchestra and how much that can and does do to improve the plight of XenServer in the SMB space it seems that there are a lot of new reasons to be taking a very strong look at Hyper-V, XenServer and, of course, KVM continues to play an important role.
VMware has gotten ESXi 6 out the door since we started the topic, they have not stood still. But it feels like the Hyper-V and XS camps have had the big gains in the last twelve months specifically.
-
Can I mention several major updates to Scale's KVM platform as well, in that time period!
