Storage Replica and Storage Spaces Direct Were Killed By Licensing
The licensing announced in Dec 2016 ( http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/products/windows-server-2016/ ) for WS2016 killed Storage Replica and S2D before GA. It makes absolutely no financial sense to deploy these features if Datacenter is required. It would be cheaper (and an easier sell) to go with the incumbent non-commodity hardware solutions that S2D and SR were meant to replace. The math is easy.
Marc Westerink commented
This would really kill all possibilities to use commodity hardware for providing storage which may make initial purchasing cheaper, not to mention costs such as devaluation and power. How would this create a decent Return On Investment (ROI)?
Christian Kreutzer commented
MSFT did an amazing job, developing this storage features. Too bad that the announced licensing model makes them nearly unsaleable for storage only systems. This will generate no benefit to traditional storage systems.
Thats really too bad! And stupid! Really bad and stupid!!
Arthur Keech commented
I was looking forward to both S2D and SR, if these are Datacenter edition only, I'm going to continue with my existing solutions (NetApp and 3Par). The new per core licensing (with a minimum requirement of 16) which is pushing for hyper convergence frankly doesn't make sense in a small enterprise environment where I need additional failover capacity.
Converging to active load 1 "super" HyperV load split between 2 actives doesn't give me the peace of mind having 5 or 6 moderate sized solutions.
In December 2015 :-)
Jamie Smith commented
Aftab Hussain commented
We have hundreds of KVM nodes, and a handful of Hyper-V nodes, S2D WAS going to be my killer feature to convince the subsidiary that I work for to move to a completely Hyper-V solution for all virtualisation and if that worked then the group which is one of the largest in Europe. What a waste of perfectly good software.
^ What Steve said, make it a whole new tier. Hey could even call it a shiny new name "Storage Server 2016"
Steve Beaumont commented
Easy fix MS, introduce a new licensing SKU - "WS2016 Datacenter for Storage" @ same cost (or very close) as WS2016 Std. Same DC OS, but licensing terms removes unlimited virtualisation rights. Basically gets used then for disaggregated storage platforms and SoFS.
Storage Replica doesn't matter so much to me since Hyper-V Replica probably makes more sense in most cases but the licensing cost of S2D makes it way too expensive. If it stays this way, I am sticking to the existing storage spaces solution using SAS JBODs.
Didier Van Hoye commented
Also, don't forget that the storage in a hyper converged scenario is just that with S2D, no other usage of the storage unless go the unsupported route. It's limited to that use case, big as virtualization might be. If there are other needs you'll need different storage. As price advantages disappear, the focus will be on ease of use, easy GUI, 24/7 dedicated support , automated online firmware updates, non disruptive one click automated software updates ... the sell will be hard,
Jason Bailey commented
I'm currently in the Higher Education space so price isn't an issue for us given the discounts, but if we paid the same as everyone else, this wouldn't be an option for us.
Arthur GERARD commented
S2D should at least be usable with Standard Edition nodes if the storage pool is accessed from Datacenter Edition Hyper-V hosts. If not, this feature can only be used in Hyper-converged scenario, that isn't optimal for datacenters.
Also 25000$ worth of licences for 4 nodes (minimum possible) S2D cluster killed this feature for SMB market. What a waste of good software :/
Nils Kaczenski commented
Effectively, with the current licensing accouncement S2D and SR can only make sense in a hyperconverged setup, using compute and hardware in the same server box that only needs one set of Datacenter licenses. Building a dedicated storage server (or even cluster) will not pay off. This is why I voted for this case. The technology itself is capable but nobody will buy it unless licensing changes.
Hans Vredevoort commented
I tend to agree if Storage Spaces Direct are used for storage only. If Hyper-coverged we use Datacenter anyway because it runs high density compute on the same box.