Confused about Rdp licensing

[ElementalWindX]

Ok Ive got a quote to build a server but the client is only using that server for its remote desktop features.

Is there a way I can get away with having 4 simultaneous people rdping into that server without wasting a huge amount of money on cals?

The licensing changes so much I often get confused on it between 2003 2008 2011 and all their flavors.

 

[jbartlett323]

Ok Ive got a quote to build a server but the client is only using that server for its remote desktop features.

Is there a way I can get away with having 4 simultaneous people rdping into that server without wasting a huge amount of money on cals?

The licensing changes so much I often get confused on it between 2003 2008 2011 and all their flavors.

From my understanding, no... First you gotta buy Device CAL's, then your gotta double down and buy RDS CAL's... just did some research for a guy last month who wanted to upgrade to server 2012 and uses RDP for all his remote sites. to the best of my understanding of this convoluted method, thats how its done. Of course after you buy Server Standard for $800...

 

[ElementalWindX]

From my understanding, no... First you gotta buy Device CAL's, then your gotta double down and buy RDS CAL's... just did some research for a guy last month who wanted to upgrade to server 2012 and uses RDP for all his remote sites. to the best of my understanding of this convoluted method, thats how its done. Of course after you buy Server Standard for $800...

What about server 2008?


Is it possible to buy 2008 foundation oem, and then buy 5 rds cals?


Where is a good place to buy 2008 foundation? I haven't tried to purchase an OEM copy ever and after some googling it seems like it's not possible. Or it's that you can only buy the foundation edition thru hp.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

*Server operating system license itself....just like if you purchase 2008 Standard Server.
*Terminal Server CAL per user that will connect. I do user cals, not device cals. Your choice...based on your clients needs.
*And of course for the user account on the domain itself...you'd need a user CAL on the DC (not on the RDS box) for the users coming through the remote desktop services server.

For a small RDS box like this I'd install the TS Licensing role on the box itself.

Oh yeah..for installing MS Office....you can only install volume licensing on a terminal server...cannot install OEM or retail licenses..it will stop you cold when the autorun from the CD launches.

 

[ElementalWindX]

*Server operating system license itself....just like if you purchase 2008 Standard Server.
*Terminal Server CAL per user that will connect. I do user cals, not device cals. Your choice...based on your clients needs.
*And of course for the user account on the domain itself...you'd need a user CAL on the DC (not on the RDS box) for the users coming through the remote desktop services server.

For a small RDS box like this I'd install the TS Licensing role on the box itself.

Oh yeah..for installing MS Office....you can only install volume licensing on a terminal server...cannot install OEM or retail licenses..it will stop you cold when the autorun from the CD launches.

Yea I've encountered that problem before. It was something like $700-$800 for 3 licenses. Fkn ridiculous.


So why wouldn't you recommend just doing 1 box and using it as the rds?

 

[jbartlett323]

You can only buy foundation through an OEM, you will not find it for sale stand-alone.

With Server 2012, I thought a User CAL and Device CAL were the same, as they are simplifing their CAL Scheme. So in reality its just a CAL, not one or the other... But StoneCat knows more than I do on this stuff so listen to him... I do know that RDS CAL's are separate, and you have to have Server Standard to run RDS. And I could only find CAL's in 5 packs, so keep that in mind.

Normally I would recommend a separate server for DC and RDS for reliability. But with only 4 users, it will probably run fine on one box with decent hardware. I do recommend using the Virtual License that comes with 2012, and Hyper-V one or the other, don't know which would be better though... StoneCat, whats your opinion? I think I'd rather the Terminal Server, so you don't lose the entire domain if it went down...

What it boils down to though, Elemental, is for any New RDS box, your gonna be spending a good chunk of change on CAL's and RDS CAL's...

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

So why wouldn't you recommend just doing 1 box and using it as the rds?

As in...they have just 1 server for their LAN...and it will be a DC...do F&P for the LAN....as well as be RDS? Technically it's possible. But the concept of having your DC exposed to the internet...and even more horrifying..having end user applications installed on a DC...and also even yet more horrifying...having end users log locally to a DC....holy yikes! Talk about having to go to that client and format/rebuild their main server on a monthly basis!

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

You can only buy foundation through an OEM, you will not find it for sale stand-alone.

With Server 2012, I thought a User CAL and Device CAL were the same, as they are simplifing their CAL Scheme. So in reality its just a CAL, not one or the other... But StoneCat knows more than I do on this stuff so listen to him... I do know that RDS CAL's are separate, and you have to have Server Standard to run RDS. And I could only find CAL's in 5 packs, so keep that in mind.
.

I'm not versed well on 2012 .....so you indeed may be ahead of me on this knowledge.

 

[ElementalWindX]

As in...they have just 1 server for their LAN...and it will be a DC...do F&P for the LAN....as well as be RDS? Technically it's possible. But the concept of having your DC exposed to the internet...and even more horrifying..having end user applications installed on a DC...and also even yet more horrifying...having end users log locally to a DC....holy yikes! Talk about having to go to that client and format/rebuild their main server on a monthly basis!

Yea I'm trying to train myself on 2012 as well.


So with a copy of 2008 STD I get 1 virtual copy correct?


So I can build 1 physical server, and then use it for AD, and create a virtual server inside of it for the RDS using the virtual copy? Is this 100% correct? (Ideally I like this method best, but wish I could incorporate it into 2012)

Your correct about them combining user/device cals. and yes rds cals are different than regular user cals.


I'm thinking 2008 STD might be the best way to go about this for costs.


Was hoping 2012 might be cheaper but I don't quite understand the 2012 essentials pricing. Like would I have to buy 2012 Essentials + buy 5 user cals + buy 5 rds cals? That would be a waste of money.


Thanks for your help guys. This is helping me clear the air about some things

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I have never added additional roles to the bare metal install Hyper-V "host".....only the Hyper-V role. No additional roles.

I have read that:
*It's not supported by Microsoft
*It won't let you
*Mixed myths (or truth) that licensing doesn't allow anything other than hyper-v role
*I have heard that if virtual guests and other domain members need to contact the Hyper-V host for anything AD related...system clocks will have timing issues.

I have also read that some people have installed a DC role to the Hyper-V host. They say without issues. Dunno if issues came up for them over time. IMO...best to install AD related services into virtual guests..and allow the Hyper-V host focus resources on being just a hyper-v host.

 

[jbartlett323]

Yea I'm trying to train myself on 2012 as well.


So with a copy of 2008 STD I get 1 virtual copy correct?


So I can build 1 physical server, and then use it for AD, and create a virtual server inside of it for the RDS using the virtual copy? Is this 100% correct? (Ideally I like this method best, but wish I could incorporate it into 2012)

Your correct about them combining user/device cals. and yes rds cals are different than regular user cals.


I'm thinking 2008 STD might be the best way to go about this for costs.


Was hoping 2012 might be cheaper but I don't quite understand the 2012 essentials pricing. Like would I have to buy 2012 Essentials + buy 5 user cals + buy 5 rds cals? That would be a waste of money.


Thanks for your help guys. This is helping me clear the air about some things

on Server 2012 you do get a Virtual License to run on-top of the Host. Server 08 R2 has different Licensing requirements... heres a link to the info for 08: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...ZwHx3OHb8A96g&bvm=bv.1355325884,d.b2I&cad=rja It is a download from Microsoft (although the link goes through google? )
I would still go Server 2012. Its easier to find CAL's, Software, and its the latest and greatest. Haven't heard nothing bad about it either, hell even Metro hasn't been ragged on that bad in 2012. But yes, Server OS+CAL's+RDS CAL's. it is a bit of a rip...

That being said, you cannot put RDS on 2012 Essentials. not supported. Has to be Server Standard to my knowledge.

I have never added additional roles to the bare metal install Hyper-V "host".....only the Hyper-V role. No additional roles.

I have read that:
*It's not supported by Microsoft
*It won't let you
*Mixed myths (or truth) that licensing doesn't allow anything other than hyper-v role
*I have heard that if virtual guests and other domain members need to contact the Hyper-V host for anything AD related...system clocks will have timing issues.

I have also read that some people have installed a DC role to the Hyper-V host. They say without issues. Dunno if issues came up for them over time. IMO...best to install AD related services into virtual guests..and allow the Hyper-V host focus resources on being just a hyper-v host.

From my research/expirenece, although it may not be supported, it does work just fine. On Server 08 R2, trust me you can install Hyper-V, AD, DNS, DHCP, P&F, VPN, FTP, IIS and WSUS (and WAMP, a couple game servers ocaasionally, NOD32 for A/V and cloud+local backups). It dont care at all. At least MY server doesn't. It runs everything and the kitchen sink, and has been for 18 months with very few issues (those were typically my fault! )
But yes, according to that doc i linked, technically the Host is the Host and nothing else, and everything else should be virtualized with separate licenses...

Ok, My head hurts now... server licensing always does that... Its massively convoluted, doesn't matter what version it is....

 

[jbartlett323]

I do feel it necessary to say that my server is not how I would set one up for a client... I beg for mine to crash, so I can fix it. I don't want theirs to crash...