Rds licencing doubt

[Yosebas84]

Hey guys, i got a client that is telling me that their old it support company made them buy 20 cals and 20 Windows standard user licences so they can use the RDS server they have on premises..

As far as i know, if you buy a Ws2016 Std and then install the RDS role and apply the CALS for the users to connect, you are good to go! (in a domain with another server working as AD, Dns, etc.) You dont need to get any additional licenses right?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Remote Desktop Services (the new term for what we used to call Terminal Server)...each user needs at least two licenses: a RDS CAL to access RDS itself....and...a regular Windows Server CAL to access whatever they're remoting in to access on the servers (file shares, programs hosted on the servers, etc)

Could be additional licenses...if they are going to use MS Office...they need an Office license per user. And if accessing a program that runs on full SQL Server...they need a SQL User CAL.

 

[Moltuae]

As Stonecat says, they need both user CALs and RDS CALs.

Could be additional licenses...if they are going to use MS Office...they need an Office license per user.

And just to add to that, if they're using 'Shared Computer Activation' on an RDSH, the users will need a minimum of an E3 licence.

 

[Yosebas84]

Hmmm interesting, it does have sense.. But i got to be honest, on the personal side, i dont like to have to pay twice for something that should be only one license.. But they will have to pay for it if they want it, right?

Thank you for solving my doubt guys.

 

[Moltuae]

But they will have to pay for it if they want it, right?

Yup. And unlike regular user CALs, which you don't do anything with, RDS user CALs need to be installed/validated so it won't work without them (as far as I know).

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

As Stonecat says, they need both user CALs and RDS CALs.


And just to add to that, if they're using 'Shared Computer Activation' on an RDSH, the users will need a minimum of an E3 licence.

Right....generally one does either Volume Licensing...or, if they run on 365....if O365 each user needs an E license that has the apps, or they can do M365 biz or higher.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Hmmm interesting, it does have sense.. But i got to be honest, on the personal side, i dont like to have to pay twice for something that should be only one license.. But they will have to pay for it if they want it, right?

Thank you for solving my doubt guys.

Well, you're not paying "twice" for "one thing". You're paying twice...for TWO things. Remote Desktop Services is a whole second product. On top of the basic AD/file server stuff.

 

[HCHTech]

...and wait until you see what those RDS licenses cost. They are quite a bit more than server CALs.

 

[Markverhyden]

M$'s not a welfare agency. If something doesn't come with the basic server there's always a price. RDS is just another service like Exchange, etc.

 

[Yosebas84]

Well, you're not paying "twice" for "one thing". You're paying twice...for TWO things. Remote Desktop Services is a whole second product. On top of the basic AD/file server stuff.

I agree that they are different products, but i feel it like buying a car and then the car dealer tells me that the wheels are not included.. If i dont get the full functionality i feel kinda cheated you know? Maybe is because i dont understand why someone would want to use RDS to connect if they can not do anything in the server because there is no license for them to even see their files.

Maybe i'm missing something here?

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Using your car analogy....not everyone wants to pay for a convertible option, not everyone wants to pay for all wheel drive, not everyone wants to pay for leather seats.

I don't know what they are using RDS for...I can't see the setup from over here. Usually a remote desktop server is separate....you don't let users remote into the file server or domain controller, rather...you stand up another member server on their network that they remote into. And apps like Quickbooks Enterprise, and/or Office Pro Plus, or some line of business software is installed on the terminal server. So..yeah typically there's that additional Server license itself too!

OR....that RDS and those RDS User CALs could be just because the prior IT company setup a TSGateway.....there's no actually terminal server that they remote into, instead they're using the TSGateway proxy role on an existing server to remote to their desktops. TSGateway is a secure way to allow people to remote to a server or their desktops...over port 443, instead of the old fashioned direct port 3389 of remote desktop which is easily hacked into now.

 

[HCHTech]

i suppose part of the problem is our market. Small businesses used primarily SBS while it was around (which was a long time). SBS bundled all of this stuff with it so we didn't get the impact of the extra costs. Now that SBS has gone away, we remember that servers could do all of this extra stuff and want to do that again. Now, we're in the same boat as folks who deal with larger businesses. Want remote access? That's more licensing. Want SQl? That's more licensing. Want more users? more licensing. MS spoiled us with SBS without telling us it was the gateway drug of server functionality.

 

[Sky-Knight]

Good stuff, but people should be aware that Microsoft Office 365 ProPlus has shared activation rights too. That's $12 / month, adding that to Office 365 Business Essentials ($5 / month), is the least expensive way to license O365 for RDS operations.

P.S. Some of us refused to sell SBS, because it was almost never done correctly and did nothing but inject additional costs.

P.P.S. SQL has always been way too expensive...

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I did a TON....TON...of SBS back in its day. I'll agree with Rob that many techs didn't do it properly. I made the core of my business on it...learned it well, got clients really using ALL OF IT, and..as always...put it on real server grade hardware. I came across too many new clients where their prior wanna-be IT people installed it on some sub thousand dollar Dell glorified desktop entry level server with SATA disks and inadequate RAM, yeah..it ran about as fast as a snail. But done right....real server SCSI disks, separate volumes for OS and data and Exchange...and it ran like a top...I've had clients larger than 50 or 60 running on it for well over 5 or 7 years....zip for problems...ZIP!

But yeah, I think HCH has a point....spoiled by the low costs of SBS...now they want similar features in todays products...getting sticker shock!