Microsoft Licensing Primer
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The second line is the part that Jason had mentioned.
When @Jason said "SA is what gives you disaster recovery rights and you can keep this live backup DR running as a cold site as long as it's not being actively being used for production"
I thought he meant the server was constantly running. Not just being booted up once every 90 days.
And I still think you need SA for this. I do not believe it is allowed without SA.
-
@BRRABill said:
And I still think you need SA for this. I do not believe it is allowed without SA.
On not normally licensed hardware yes.
To boot up on the same hardware to test when you have enterprise no.
-
-
This requirement for SA has really foxed me. How do people without SA perform Disaster Recovery testing? It's almost impossible isn't it? But if it's impossible, how to companies get away without have any DR testing?
And you don't just need SA on your Windows licence do you? You need SA on all your applications, SQL Server, Exchange, Sharepoint etc etc
-
Am I right in thinking a Windows licence is effectively assigned to a physical host rather than to individual VMs running on that host?
So if I had a DR/Lab host, used purely for testing, and purchased a single Windows Server Standard licence, could I run various different VMs on the box provided I never had more than two VMs running at the same time? So I could test a DC and Exchange, then shutdown Exchange and restore Sharepoint and test that? Is that how it works? (I appreciate I would need SA or separate licences for the applications eg Exchange and Sharepoint)
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
This requirement for SA has really foxed me. How do people without SA perform Disaster Recovery testing? It's almost impossible isn't it? But if it's impossible, how to companies get away without have any DR testing?
They buy multiple licenses.
It's been my understanding that larger shops typically don't run into this because they either have Datacenter Edition, or just buy enough licenses to cover it. It has also been brought to my attention you could do it the old fashioned way. Actually perform a test disaster recovery.
I assume a lot of places just look the other way, because it makes no sense to follow the licensing. Kind of like doing 56 in a 55.
But to each their own...
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
This requirement for SA has really foxed me. How do people without SA perform Disaster Recovery testing? It's almost impossible isn't it? But if it's impossible, how to companies get away without have any DR testing?
It's not that SA is required, it's just generally the more cost effective approach. If you have datacenter licensing on every piece of hardware, for example, you would not need SA for this at all. SA lets you do that stuff without having so many Windows licenses. It's just one of the options.
-
@BRRABill said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
This requirement for SA has really foxed me. How do people without SA perform Disaster Recovery testing? It's almost impossible isn't it? But if it's impossible, how to companies get away without have any DR testing?
They buy multiple licenses.
It's been my understanding that larger shops typically don't run into this because they either have Datacenter Edition, or just buy enough licenses to cover it. It has also been brought to my attention you could do it the old fashioned way. Actually perform a test disaster recovery.
Larger shops definitely use DataCenter editions and often do blanket licenses for their workloads so that they don't have to track this so closely. Enterprise licenses build in a lot of fudge factor to make Windows more attractive.
-
See ... I am learning!
-
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
-
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that MS paying for this would make the most sense - but of course we know that they would never do it because it just shows how much of a bad deal MS licensing is.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that MS paying for this would make the most sense - but of course we know that they would never do it because it just shows how much of a bad deal MS licensing is.
MS paying for it would make the least sense, IMHO. They are the ones with all of the financial interest in no one knowing how much licensing as a concept is costing them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that MS paying for this would make the most sense - but of course we know that they would never do it because it just shows how much of a bad deal MS licensing is.
MS paying for it would make the least sense, IMHO. They are the ones with all of the financial interest in no one knowing how much licensing as a concept is costing them.
That's what the second part of my statement was saying.
-
I know the Microsoft SAM audit wasted about 2-3 hours of my day for an entire week.
-
Why wasn't I informed of this Microsoft SAM audit, and what does it entail?
-
@DustinB3403 It is a self audit of that is conducted by Microsoft Partners on behalf of Microsoft, you have to verify/list all software installed, then they compare it to what they show you have licensed and if you are short you are required to bring it up to compliance. They say it is a voluntary audit, but they also say if you don't do it then they will hand it over to Microsoft's legal department and may go through an actual BSA audit.
-
Fun times, so did you pass, fail, or decline?
