Additional 2012R2 License Question
-
@DenisKelley said:
You'll go through a reseller. If you have an Open License, then you can grab a single license and add to your agreement. You then can install two more VMs on that server.
Just to clarify, even if you have an Open License, you still go through your retailer, and they attach your new purchase to your existing Open License.
-
@Dashrender said:
@DenisKelley said:
You'll go through a reseller. If you have an Open License, then you can grab a single license and add to your agreement. You then can install two more VMs on that server.
Just to clarify, even if you have an Open License, you still go through your retailer, and they attach your new purchase to your existing Open License.
Yeah, the last sentence was a bonus answer.
-
For clarity... With one license you get two VMs on a hypervisor. No need or benefit to using HyperV. The "physical" is consumed by the HyperV control environment. You can get equal value from vSphere, KVM or XenServer.
-
@Reid-Cooper said:
For clarity... With one license you get two VMs on a hypervisor. No need or benefit to using HyperV. The "physical" is consumed by the HyperV control environment. You can get equal value from vSphere, KVM or XenServer.
Need or benefit? perhaps there is - If he is already familiar with HyperV, he gets the benefit of his experience vs learning something new. As for need, perhaps the company does not want to buy VMWare. or the others.
-
All four are free. There is no license benefit to HyperV with Windows. It is an extremely common misconception.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Reid-Cooper said:
For clarity... With one license you get two VMs on a hypervisor. No need or benefit to using HyperV. The "physical" is consumed by the HyperV control environment. You can get equal value from vSphere, KVM or XenServer.
Need or benefit? perhaps there is - If he is already familiar with HyperV, he gets the benefit of his experience vs learning something new. As for need, perhaps the company does not want to buy VMWare. or the others.
With the help of the ML community, I went with Hyper-V in my conversion from Small Business Server 2003 to 2012R2. Despite a hiccup the first week where every VM was slow (a reboot fixed it and it never happened again), I've been very pleased with Hyper-V.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
All four are free. There is no license benefit to HyperV with Windows. It is an extremely common misconception.
As long as you don't want to backup from the hypervisor, sure.
-
@Dashrender XenServer and KVM have full everything for free. Only vSphere limits the backup API in its free version.
HyperV has limits too on free. Just not the backup API. If you go down the "features for free" list you'd go to XenServer every time.
-
@scottalanmiller I believe the newer version (last two releases) opened up the API again on the free version of ESXi. I need to check on that but that's what the rumor is.
Regardless you can still back them up using a third party bare metal just not using snapshots.
Edit: Did some research, found out that rumor that the API is supported again, is from the fact that many people are using the free version with agent based backups not agenet less so it is VM/Guest level backups not snapshots which is not different than backing up a physical machine. It will still work fine if you want to do it this way but, just know that you don't get the instant recovery of just re-deploying a vmdk. It takes time to restore.
Sorry for posting misleading information. -
@scottalanmiller said:
HyperV has limits too on free. Just not the backup API. If you go down the "features for free" list you'd go to XenServer every time.
Yeah, I believe it's doing a much better job with windows virtualization than it used to. It used to be somewhat slow/laggy with windows and linux ran great but now days it seems to be on par with ESXi.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller I believe the newer version (last two releases) opened up the API again on the free version of ESXi. I need to check on that but that's what the rumor is.
No, the free version definitely does not have the ability to backup. [VMware ESXi.] That issue is very much a current one impacting every free virtualization decision today. Perhaps they will open it up in the future vSphere 6 release, but 5, 5.1 and 5.5 it is not available.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Edit: Did some research, found out that rumor that the API is supported again, is from the fact that many people are using the free version with agent based backups not agenet less so it is VM/Guest level backups not snapshots which is not different than backing up a physical machine. It will still work fine if you want to do it this way but, just know that you don't get the instant recovery of just re-deploying a vmdk. It takes time to restore.
Unitrends created a lot of confusion around that because of the wording of their posts about it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
HyperV has limits too on free. Just not the backup API. If you go down the "features for free" list you'd go to XenServer every time.
Yeah, I believe it's doing a much better job with windows virtualization than it used to. It used to be somewhat slow/laggy with windows and linux ran great but now days it seems to be on par with ESXi.
It's getting there. No way it could be considered on par, but pretty good, yes. HyperV is still the fourth place on technology but second place in the SMB marketplace. VMware and Xen are the technology leaders and the enterprise market leaders. KVM is the overall backrunner with no good spot in the market but IBM and Red Hat dollars working hard to keep it viable. HyperV is the last place on technology but with massive Microsoft investment, marketing muscle and the simplicity of being under the same umbrella as most other software in the SMB space which seems to be the only factor, other than confusion, driving SMBs to use it (there was a time when nearly every HyperV install was done through misunderstanding.)
If HyperV did not have backups included or if VMware did have them included in the free version, HyperV would again have little purpose in the market.
