I can't even
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Do you consider an actively replicating VM "just a cold backup file" that is not considered by Microsoft to be an OSE that needs licensed?
At this point I do consider it a cold backup file. And therefore requires no more licensing than a backup does, i.e. no SA or other Windows Server Licensing. Now, once you turn it on, all bets are off. To turn it on, you need SA for DR benefits.
That's how I used to think of it too, even though it doesn't matter in my current environment.
But after reading all of the information out there from reputable sources saying otherwise, I started looking at it differently.
Mainly this part: "If you don't need any additional licensing for VM replication, then why is it part of a benefit of Software Assurance in any context?"... I can see having the ability to "run" the replica as part of it... and another being an OSE is an "Instance means an image of software that is created by executing the software’s setup or install procedure or by duplicating an existing Instance."
Microsoft's own documentation is full of contradiction and vagueness.
Right but by those definitions, any backup is an image of an instance.
By ANY definition, backups are an image. At least image based backups. Which is important, because relicas aren't special snowflakes, they are normal and fall under normal licensing rules making them very easy to deal with.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.
@Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.
Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.
That's not quite true. I KNOW that the replica itself does not need a license, that has never once been questioned. It is if the feature to DO the replication might need a license. But that, too, appears to have been a myth.
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
@scottalanmiller please provide the link to your source document for 2016 as well as the page number you are referencing. Otherwise this is all speculation on your part. I mean I believe you found the correct document and it is a real quote, but it needs to verifiable.
It was page 11.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
There is no DR until that time, there is no intent until that time, there is no reason to have spent money on a license until that time.
I think this is where a lot of people disagree with you - using Hyper-V replication to replicate a VM to another Hyper-V host, instead of using backup software to backup to dumb storage, to most in implying intent to spin up the replica in case of DR.
They can disagree, but it requires lying. It doesn't imply that intent and claiming that you can even know that intent is outright deception.
That's like saying buying a gun, just buying it, means you intend to murder someone. Sure, that's the expected use case of buying a gun, but unless you can prove that no one has ever intended to use it for any other purpose, you cannot make such a claim.
It's a conceptually false type of claim - to claim one intent that isn't even implied by the action.
Using those mechanisms purely for backup is a perfectly acceptable, and used, technique. And one I literally worked on three days ago! This isn't theory, this is real world.
So while people may claim to disagree here, they are being malicious to do so. It's not a claim that someone can ethically make.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
So in the Windows 2016 documents for licensing, this is the sole reference to replica (except storage replica, which is a different thing)...
Notice that it only gets mentioned under "Disaster recovery rights", DR is a term used for running a system on other hardware after the initial has failed. So the context of this license portion is assuming DR is used - not something that applies to what we are discussing.
Microsoft clearly refers to the replica as a backup here, as well.
The entire section is about temporarily running a backup instance in a physical or virtual OSE. That's explicitly what we said we were NOT doing when discussing this.
So, as you can see, there is absolutely nothing in the Windows 2016 Licensing document about replicas as replicas, only replicas that have been used to create running systems on separate hardware. The part that you quoted earlier was this very portion, but lacking the context of the list leaving out the part that this portion only applies once you tried to run the replica - which is the entire crux of the issue. Every link that you provided all word their licensing beliefs based on the assumption that the replica will be used to fire up a DR instance - but this is not the primarily use of replicas and it cannot be assumed.
Right, I specifically mentioned that part as pertaining solely for the "Disaster Recovery" benefit of SA. We're on teh same page there.
Okay, but then what's there to discuss? The SA license only applies in scenarios that we haven't been discussing, right?
Right.
Here's the part where there is no documentation specific to the Hyper-V Replication:
No Software Assurance, no disaster recovery, etc. etc... let's leave that out of the equation, as it provides no value in this case.
Someone simply has HV01 and HV02. Both are running Hyper-V Server 2016. HV01 has VM1 under a WS2016 standard license. HV02 has nothing but Hyper-V Server 2016.
Someone is using Hyper-V Replication to replicate VM1 to HV02.
First some MS provided definitions:
Operating System Environment (OSE) means all or part of an operating system Instance, or all or part of a virtual (or otherwise emulated) operating system Instance which enables separate machine identity (primary computer name or similar unique identifier) or separate administrative rights, and instances of applications, if any, configured to run on the operating system Instance or parts identified above. A physical hardware system can have one Physical OSE and/or one or more Virtual OSEs.
Virtual OSE means an OSE that is configured to run on a virtual hardware system.
Instance means an image of software that is created by executing the software’s setup or install procedure or by duplicating an existing Instance.
MS clearly states that all OSEs must be licensed. So the question then becomes this:
Is VM1 an OSE?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 when it's running, and VM1 on HV01 is off?
- Yes.
There are a lot of "or"s in their definitions, which help to define them. After an "or", you can take the rest of it out, but must leave things before and after the "and"s.
Right, but we aren't talking about OSEs, so they should not be mentioned. That's an unrelated topic. Of course OSEs have to be meantioned.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.
Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?
I assume yes.
I don't see any mention of the word "running".
Unless that is said somewhere else.
No, of course not. It's not a server if it is off. This is silly. Obviously you don't need to license non-running systems. Even if it wasn't obvious that "files" are never licensed, MS states this plainly and always has.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.
Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?
I assume yes.
I don't see any mention of the word "running".
Unless that is said somewhere else.
So you are suggesting that ALL backup systems must have licensing for EVERY copy of files that they store. That you license what MIGHT be used, not what IS used?
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@eddiejennings said in I can't even:
This whole discussion is part of what fueled my interest in Linux.
Yeah, no question about replicating Linux VMs with Hyper-V.
That's not quite true. If licensing is needed for the FEATURE, then Linux would need it, too. If you don't need it for the feature, then we know that there is no licensing needed whatsoever.
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
Actually, digging through it carefully, it does not. Read all of those references carefully and you'll find that it is purely for when using Hyper-V Replica for DR (which means running in MS terms) that licensing is needed (SA licensing.) The missing of the "for DR" portion is what has led to the myth of needing it for the feature.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
Because the theory was that Hyper-V Replication (capital R), the feature, needed licesning. There is NO POSSIBILITY that replicas themselves need to be licensed. The replica is "jsut a cold file" and never, ever, ever under MS licensing does a file have a licensing requirement or even a hint thereof.
But a feature to make a file, might. But we've not been able to find such in the licesning. At this point, it is safe to assume that that was a myth. But the source of it being mentioned so often.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
. Otherwise this is all speculation on your part. I mean I believe you found the correct document and it is a real quote, but it
That's just it - you can't find documentation to his point, that's sorta like proving a negative - instead one needs to find documentation saying that he's wrong. Which Scott is claiming he can't find.
Right, I'm just going by logic, default cases, and MS licensing. There is nothing that says a special license is needed, until such documentation is presented (and it has to be from MS and apply to real systems) it's just a made up case that doesn't exist. Base licensing says one thing, unless someone provides an exception, that's the case we are under.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.
Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?
I assume yes.
I don't see any mention of the word "running".
Unless that is said somewhere else.
Interesting - and I would say - nope... but to have installed it in the first place, you would either have to have been in a trial period, or have a license. Assuming you were in a trial period, and you power it off, yet never delete it, I'd say no you don't need a license. If you had a license when you built it, then powered it off.. I'd say you can keep the VM and sell the license (if that's possible) and have no worries. Though the moment you power that VM backup up - you need a license.
Exactly. You needed a licence to get to that point. The license is for what you did, not what you are doing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
The replica is "jsut a cold file" and never, ever, ever under MS licensing does a file have a licensing requirement or even a hint thereof.
Then, why does Microsoft document that replication is not "cold", but that it is "warm"?
-
@dustinb3403 said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
Is VM1 an OSE when it is turned off?
- Yes.
Is VM1 an OSE on HV02 (as a replica in a replicated state (turned off))?
- Yes, because it's a duplicate of an Instance.
If this is true, then anyone running Unitrends needs to license all backed up VMs because they are duplicates that can be started any time the owner wants from the Unitrends applicance.
Well, when you turn off your server... does it still need to be licensed?
I assume yes.
I don't see any mention of the word "running".
Unless that is said somewhere else.
Interesting - and I would say - nope... but to have installed it in the first place, you would either have to have been in a trial period, or have a license. Assuming you were in a trial period, and you power it off, yet never delete it, I'd say no you don't need a license. If you had a license when you built it, then powered it off.. I'd say you can keep the VM and sell the license (if that's possible) and have no worries. Though the moment you power that VM backup up - you need a license.
Well licenses are non-transferable. So you could discard the licensing as it's past end of life or whatever and only keep the VM around for archival purposes. But ever powering on that system again would mean you're required to have a license for it.
So don't keep things around forever, or upgrade as it's required.
Exactly, you can buy a license at that time, or wait a few hundred years till one is not needed from some change in statutes.
-
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.
Except no one can find where Microsoft says that. Nothing we can find suggests that those features need licensing, no MS docs says so. They only say that you need it for DR which suggests you didn't need licensing when not for DR, which is what we are discussing. Anything that adds "DR" means it's not applicable at this time to what we are talking about.
-
I'm trying to understand what MS DOES say in their licensing documents. Not what they don't say.
What I have seen so far is that an "Instance" can be a duplicate of an existing Instance, and that all instances are OSEs. Going by that, it appears that even cold backups must be licensed... which you're right, is just silly.
-
@coliver said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.
@Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.
Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.
Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.
What ambiguities? Read the docs, they are pretty clear. I don't see ambiguities, just a lot of misinformation from outside sources that people assume originated from MS.
-
@coliver said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.
@Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.
Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.
Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.
https://i.imgur.com/gi0hPcy.png
I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.
Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.
What documentation do you want? There is no reason to even be looking for it, there is nothing from MS that should suggest a need for it.
-
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@dashrender said in I can't even:
@coliver said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.
@Tim_G 's argument is that regardless of tool it still requires a license.
Right, and Scott's argument earlier was that it was the Replication tool inside Hyper-V that was being licensed, but has since turned 180 and feels that as long as the copy/backup/replica isn't started, no license at all is required.
Huh? That's not how I read that side of the argument. I don't really want to go through the thread again though so I'll take your word for it. It's been an interesting conversation for sure. Amazing that the intentional licensing ambiguities can create two completely different ideas on this.
https://i.imgur.com/gi0hPcy.png
I'm not sure how else to read that. There there are around 50 more posts talking about this point, but I don't think anything definitive was provided.
Right, that you don't need licensing for backups is how I read that. That there has been little to no actual documentation on it leaves a lot to be desired though.
and scott is calling a replica the same as a backup, as long as you never turn it on.
It's not ME calling it that. It's what it IS. Veeam, Unitrends, StorageCraft, Microsoft, the industry... they all use replica as a type of backup mechanism.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@tim_g said in I can't even:
@jaredbusch said in I can't even:
@Tim_G everything you link is referring to Hyper-V replication. It is understood that using Hyper-V to replicate requires SA or full licensing on both servers.
What does it matter which program you use for VM replication? That doesn't change anything at all.
That's like saying you only need volume licensing to image desktops if you use WDS, and not if you use another OS imaging solution...
It absolutely does. We are talking about using a tool that requires a license to copy files versus a tool that does not require a license to copy files.
If that is true, then you need a license to replicate Linux VMs as well... and that can't be right. Because I'm using Hyper-V Server 2016 to replicate Linux VMs. There's no way I'm going to buy a Windows license to cover a Linux VM.
Exactly. That can't be true. So we've pretty much determined that the Hyper-V Replication feature licensing is a myth as well.
