Backup System For 5 PC SMB

I am using some backup product to do image backups of this VM. Something on the backup product (whether it be a device or straight software) allows you to spin up a virtual instance of the backup image of that VM located on another machine. The backup box is running linux or whatever they use to do the backups, etc. But the virtual VM is running Server 2012, and thus needs a license.

Or ... let's say I export the backup image from the backup box. I spin that up in VirtualBox to test it. I need ANOTHER license for Server 2012 to do that, correct?

You don't license the VMs. You license the physical device. Not the hypervisor, not the VMs. Just the physical device. You can either apply "Windows Server Standard" licenses to get to the number of VMs that you want to be able to run on that device or you can apply a "Windows Server DC" license to have an unlimited number on a single device.

That's all. You always need the platform licenses if you want a Windows Server VM and you need the right combination that gets you to the number of instances that you need. There is never a time that you need to worry about what hypervisor is in use or how the VMs are running, only that they are or are not there.

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said:

I am considering Hyper-V a feature/role of a Server 2012 machine. Is that incorrect?

No, Microsoft makes it appear that way for some insane reason, but HyperV is a type 1 hypervisor and not a part of Windows nor can it run on Windows nor can VMs run on Windows. If you are running HyperV, it is installed to the bare metal and all VMs run on top of it. Always, no exceptions. The "role" is an installation method to get to that point and not the generally recommended one. But it is nothing but an installer, Windows is always a VM on top of HyperV.

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said:

I install 2012, I enable Hyper-V. I create VMs.

This is true where:

enable equals install as a shim on the bare metal underneath the running instance of Windows and restart the system turning the original instance of Windows into a VM on top of HyperV.

Enable is a very confusing way to think of that process.

BRRABill

@scottalanmiller said:

No, Microsoft makes it appear that way for some insane reason, but HyperV is a type 1 hypervisor and not a part of Windows nor can it run on Windows nor can VMs run on Windows. If you are running HyperV, it is installed to the bare metal and all VMs run on top of it. Always, no exceptions. The "role" is an installation method to get to that point and not the generally recommended one. But it is nothing but an installer, Windows is always a VM on top of HyperV.

OK, that is definitely going into a separate thread, because I don't know what you mean.

scottalanmiller

This page should help: http://mangolassi.it/topic/5272/somethings-you-need-to-know-about-hyperv

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said:

OK, that is definitely going into a separate thread, because I don't know what you mean.

Sounds like a plan

BRRABill

Actually, I think I get it now.

Server 2012R2 by itself = regular server
Then you "install" Hyper-V
The "original regular" server becomes another VM on top of Hyper-V, but can technically be used for nothing.

BRRABill

Do you feel like you've been feeding a baby bird?

scottalanmiller

@BRRABill said:

Actually, I think I get it now.

Server 2012R2 by itself = regular server
Then you "install" Hyper-V
The "original regular" server becomes another VM on top of Hyper-V, but can technically be used for nothing.

Boom! You got it!

scottalanmiller

We did some offline digging into this last night. Some of the important tack-aways that seem to answer a lot of the questions....

Activation and keys are technical DRM components and do not reflect or directly relate to licensing. Vendors giving activation information are not discussing licensing and the ability to get a valid activation from MS does not mean that there is valid licensing. No matter what the activation status, licensing remains the client's responsibility to determine and ensure is correct.
The majority use case for all of these imaging solutions is for servers, not workstations. Workstations are supported insofar as they are not blocked. But that there is an ability to use the products with workstations doesn't mean that that is the design intent or a major design consideration. So features built for servers exist without specific intent for the workstations. The licensing for workstations is not related to the licensing for servers so things that are normal and sensible for servers may be impractical for workstations.
Virtual and Physical workstations have different licensing and the imaging DR options are normal for one and not the other. Not every feature is available to every licensing model.
End users are responsible for all licensing far beyond the use cases discussed. Using these tools to recover failed software or drive back to the same desktop is covered by a normal OEM license. Using these tools to recover to a different desktop is covered through VL licensing (more details than we can include here.) Using these tools to recover to a virtual instance is covered through a VDI license. VDI to VDI is naturally covered. Licensing is complex and extensive and requires a lot of planning no matter what strategy or tools are being considered.
The "virtual testing" feature may not require a license as it is not doing what was believed but is only generated a screenshot to verify that the backup was successful. It never provides a running VM. We don't know the license status of this feature but it is not like what had been understood. It is an emailed screenshot, not a viable, running VM.
The marketing from the vendors does not suggest using the tools for physical to virtual workstations. Workstations are an "also handles" feature and "virtual testing" is similar as a lesser feature. There are very valid use cases for each feature listed.

It's complicated but I think that we covered a ton of ground. And a few vendors are getting involved to discuss as well. On the back end I looped a couple in that are going to take a look and make sure that they are presenting the right information.

While this is a backup / restore situation, the licensing is extremely close to automatic virtualization failover scenarios as well.

scottalanmiller

With virtualization scenarios it is becoming increasing common for people to buy a few servers, two or three, and wanting to do failover for planned maintenance or load balancing. Often they forget that this requires either enough Server Standard licenses per host to handle whatever load is thrown at it or it requires DC licensing. Costs can escalate up very quickly in ways that people rarely anticipate.

I know some hyperconverged vendors work hard to educate customers about how different settings will cause licensing headaches, but it is complicated and most vendors when selling an inverted pyramid of doom often leave out the immense cost of licensing that it will cost them on top of the additional hardware.

BRRABill

I can certainly say I have learned a lot of licensing and activation.

I previously thought they were the same.

Like say I backed up an OEM machine, and wanted to BMR it to a new machine. This will not activate. Now, I can call Microsoft and they may or may not give me a new activation key, but regardless, this is NOT a valid use of the original OEM license. The new machine needs its own license.