Modernize your workloads on Azure, the trusted cloud for Windows Server. Start free. Get started. Update to the latest operating system for enhanced security, performance and value. Free trial. Learn more about Windows Server. Try Azure now. Windows Migration Center Learn how to migrate your Windows workloads over to Azure using our step by step guides and resources.
Windows Admin Center Manage your servers, clusters, hyperconverged infrastructure, and Windows 10 PCs with this browser-based app. Buy Windows Server Check out our recent Windows Server events. Watch on-demand. Microsoft Edge Insider. Azure Databases.
Autonomous Systems. Education Sector. Microsoft Localization. Microsoft PnP. Healthcare and Life Sciences. Internet of Things IoT. Enabling Remote Work. Small and Medium Business. Humans of IT. However, it eventually seems to say that deploying development and production virtual machines to the same physical hardware is allowed without having to supply "production" licenses for all installed software on the development and test virtual machines. Is my proposed design feasible from a licensing perspective?
Or, strictly to avoid licensing problems, should I absolutely keep non-production and production virtual machines on separate physical virtualization hosts to avoid having installed MSDN development software potentially treated as production use? My nightmare scenario goes something like this: During a SAM engagement, multiple SQL Server instances installed on development VMs are treated as unlicensed production instances because the development VMs are running on the same physical virtualization host that's also running actual production VMs e.
I'd be especially interested to hear feedback from those who have been through a Microsoft SAM engagement where this issue came up. I don't think Microsoft would have an issue with this setup as long as steps are taken to deny access to non MSDN licensed users via what you propose, separate VLAN, etc.
A SAM auditor may take exception to this, if they even know what MSDN is - most SAM auditors I've dealt with are morons and are only out to make a buck which is why I refuse to participate when they come sniffing around.
In the event of an actual audit, I don't think they'd have a problem with it. I tend to look at the intent of the licensing rules as opposed to often confusing and contradictory documents. MSDN licenses as i understand it are designed for per user use, not for use on servers, virtual or physical where more than one person connect.
In contrast, using constant updates and patches on a fully mirrored infrastructure or with open interfaces to actively used servers would be productive use that needs to be licensed accordingly. This would likely fail an audit. It's very rare for auditors to see installed apps on servers as being properly licensed when there's a chance that non licensed people can get to them.
Thank you to all who have responded. Based on my research and the responses to this post, it looks like what I propose can be done. For future readers who might be interested, I just found another Spiceworks post from which also discusses this same topic:. MSDN and production environments. That leads me to a follow up question: How can I get such an "official" answer from Microsoft?
Microsoft being the extremely large entity that it is, I have no idea where to start with such an inquiry. Any suggestion about how to go about this would be appreciated. It's hard to find an "official" answer. Microsoft reps often contradict themselves - tech guys don't know or care about licensing so they may say one thing whereas another tech will say another wheras a sales person will tell you anything to get a sale. Lacking an official document, not a blog, that says you specifically can't have a development environment on a host with a production environment, my view is if you take steps to ensure only your licensed developers have access to it, it's fine.
And with all due respect to their reps in forums such as this, rarely will you get straight up answer - you'll be given a link to a document which often is clear as mud.
It's a per user subscription for an individual, not intended to be used on a server where multiple people access it or a server that is already operating production licenses. One user may install and use copies of the software to design, develop, test and demonstrate your programs. You may not use the software on a device or server in a production environment.
Unfortunately, true. But I'd still appreciate their feedback on this post if they'd be willing to chime in. I could even present a more specific deployment scenario on which they could comment. It bothers me that diligent pros like myself make a good faith effort to understand and comply with Microsoft's vast and often convoluted licensing terms, and yet we still run the risk of getting burned badly down the road.
I do like many of Microsoft's products, but the lack of clarify in their licensing terms potentially discourages me from making additional investments in their solutions. This kind of service could be outsourced to a Microsoft partner similar to how they outsource SAM engagements. But instead of being reactive like a SAM engagement, it would be proactive for the customer on the customer's schedule and on their terms before they purchase and deploy software.
The worst aspect of a SAM engagement is that you may find out that your deployment is out of compliance after the fact, and then you have a potentially very expensive software purchase that's unplanned. It shouldn't have to be that way. I know what I propose is never going to happen, but it would be much better for Microsoft's customers in my opinion.
I was going to suggest the same thing about having a compliance dept. As it is, they already refer you to partners with such questions. I have been given conflicting information from the licensing folks at Ingram Micro, one of if not the biggest distributor out there.
The comments at the end of that post seem to concur with the notion that non-production and production virtual machines can share the same physical host if you properly cover the virtual machines with MSDN and commercial licenses. As some comments to this post point out, it's all subject to interpretation. Microsoft could take a hardline position in that interpretation during an audit. Whether or not they would choose to do so, it's anyone's guess.
I'm assuming it could vary on a case by case basis.
0コメント