Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead
-
@DustinB3403 said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
@FATeknollogee said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
@Danp said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
Do they have a plan to replace this outdated tech with something current?
Yes, there was a six month plan in place already, but it just got moved to something like a six day plan.
Love it when that happens!!
The system is still f***** because they have to replace it today and they have to worry about good backups today.
2003 is ancient
Backups are running today.
-
@Obsolesce said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
I'm guessing the thing hasn't been maintained at all which would have brought this about sooner but in a controlled manner.
Pretty much. We weren't even told about it. Not that we needed to be, we consult for this customer, we aren't their outsourced IT.
-
well, that's a Fuster Cluck and a half
-
And that's why we call them IPOD. (Inverted Pyramid of Doom). Welcome them to the club, hopefully doing it correctly this time!
-
@travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
And that's why we call them IPOD. (Inverted Pyramid of Doom). Welcome them to the club, hopefully doing it correctly this time!
Yeah, we mentioned that on the call. But it predated the people who were there now (it even predated their CAREERS!) It's such an old system. When a system is 16 years old, it's actually not that common to find people who were actively working in IT at that time. If you assume most people don't start IT until the age that they would have finished college, that's 23. Add sixteen career years, that's 39. Add a year for planning of the project before it was purchased, and you are age 40. So only people likely to be 40+, who started in IT right away and didn't move from another career, could be reasonably expected to have been in the field at the time that the system was decided on! That's nuts.
-
This really is a good example of why the IPOD is so bad. The "never fails" DAS failed, but at least it didn't lose the data, it just caused a large panic outage.
But there are three servers, instead of one. And two of them failed. One completely (node 2), and one partially (the DAS.) Had only Node 1 been purchased, they would have had no outage, no failures, and made it sixteen years at about one quarter the cost, and never seen an outage at all.
The "just buy one server" here would have kicked the crap out of the reliability of the IPOD! No redundancy on this system was ever used, but because it had that redundancy, it caused things to fail that should not have.
-
@scottalanmiller, I read the first 10 posts or so like it was your ships log after you shipwrecked on a deserted island, and you were preserving the record for whoever found your body.
-
@Donahue said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:
@scottalanmiller, I read the first 10 posts or so like it was your ships log after you shipwrecked on a deserted island, and you were preserving the record for whoever found your body.
LMAO.
Captain's log January 5, 2019.... still no fresh water and the server won't boot. We lost James this morning, dehydration and sun exposure. Also, the SAN died.
-
@scottalanmiller lol
