XenServer vs ESXi
-
@coliver said:
Expense is the big one. You would be spending a significant amount of money on licensing and getting no benefit from it. Unless of course the benefit is the MSP is going to support it... in that case I would ditch them and look at an MSP who can support what you have not what they want you to get.
Very important that your MSP either not significantly drive your decision making (they always have to a little, no MSP can truly do absolutely everything absolutely equally, but within reason) or that you calculate the amount that they do into the valuation of their services. If they require that you run only what they know, that might allow them to lower the cost that they charge you (but that needs to be verified of course) but it causes things to cost you more as you can no longer pursue the technology that is best for your business but instead the ones that are best for your MSP. And MSPs generally choose this technology based on profit margins or ease of support (or lack thereof so that they can sell more support) rather than on being cost effective to acquire and support for the customer. So it can create a cascading effect of cost if you are not careful.
-
@coliver said:
What advantages does the MSP propose that ESXi will provide the XenServer can't?
Likely that they know the one and aren't even aware that the other exists.
-
My guess is that the MSP is not functioning as an MSP here but as a VAR - a reseller and so the recommendation is purely one of sales and no consideration for business needs has been included.
-
That Vm that is CPU intensive is constantly being asked to generate rather large database reports sequentially upwards of 12-30 at a time.
Having only 4 CPU's it can only run 4 jobs, to top it off it nearly maxes out is memory usage during these period so performance tanks even more
-
@coliver said:
As for Hyper-V sounds like something is wrong if it is running slowly. Our Hyper-V systems are running great.
I agree, nothing wrong with HyperV and it should be running just fine. If the MSP can't get the systems that they have recommended in the past to work, based on that track record, why would the boss even remotely consider letting them replace what you've shown does work for something more expensive from a vendor that is having issues supporting what they recommend?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
That Vm that is CPU intensive is constantly being asked to generate rather large database reports sequentially upwards of 12-30 at a time.
Having only 4 CPU's it can only run 4 jobs, to top it off it nearly maxes out is memory usage during these period so performance tanks even more
So the issue is that the server put in was too small? HyperV is not causing as issue? Who did the capacity planning? Can more memory be added, another CPU, a bigger CPU?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The trouble as far as I can tell with the Hyper-V setup is that our MSP sold it just to sell it, rather than "Oh hey spend X and build a proper Hypervisor, we'll just use your secondary DC to run these machines"
What manager kept them after they installed processing onto a DC? Who is overseeing the vendor management?
-
The server was/is our acting 2nd on site DC, we have 4 in total.
The board is maxed out with memory. I'm not positive how the conversation went when the idea came up to do this but I have a feeling it went like " We need X,Y,Z and need to spend a little as possible"
The result was something that runs horribly. Oh our On-Site Exchange is hosted on this same host, works "fair" for what it does but seems like its over scaled. And is still sluggish in basic operations.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Its the poor proposals after another that are getting to me. It's just not my place to start looking for another MSP... even though I've considered it.
Here is the big question... is it your job to care about the company or not to care? It's an honest question. Lots of companies would say that it is not your job to be involved. Others would be furious to find out that you knew an MSP was screwing them over and that a manager was letting it happen and not even pushing back for reasonable solutions and you didn't go up the chain to let someone know. Figuring out what your role in is key.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The result was something that runs horribly. Oh our On-Site Exchange is hosted on this same host, works "fair" for what it does but seems like its over scaled. And is still sluggish in basic operations.
Red flags. Red flags everywhere.
-
I was asked to make a compelling case.
That to me means I should care.
But to what level. . .
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
The trouble as far as I can tell with the Hyper-V setup is that our MSP sold it just to sell it, rather than "Oh hey spend X and build a proper Hypervisor, we'll just use your secondary DC to run these machines"
What manager kept them after they installed processing onto a DC? Who is overseeing the vendor management?
What do you mean by "installed processing onto a DC"? I know little about Hyper-V, but we used our existing DC for our ESXi host and it went fine. Isn't this the same?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I was asked to make a compelling case.
That to me means I should care.
But to what level. . .
You were asked by someone who was willing to also make a compelling case for VMware? Given that there is no known advantage to the VMware route, it is hard to know what constitutes a compelling case. XenServer is known to work, known to be easy, already in the shop... to me that's a slam dunk right there in the light of "no advantages to switching."
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
What do you mean by "installed processing onto a DC"? I know little about Hyper-V, but we used our existing DC for our ESXi host and it went fine. Isn't this the same?
That would be the same, and it would be a terrible practice, and it consumes one of your licenses and/or it is a license violation. HyperV is never meant to be used that way and is licensed in such a way that you would never have to. Can you? Sure. Should you, definitely not. The "host" is supposed to do nothing but managed HyperV. If you use your "two VMs" licenses from Windows, then you aren't allowed to have the DC on the host at all, that's another use license.
-
Unless by "used an existing DC as the host" you mean that you removed the DC, made the system into a host instead of doing a clean install first, and then installed the DC into one of the guest VMs. That would be "fine", but you should always clean install before making something into the HyperV host, it only takes a few minutes and ensures that you have a pristine host platform.
-
Nope. . . Hyper-V was installed directly into the existing DC02, and VM's setup while the system was functioning.
-
This is not a practice that revolves around HyperV, it is just HyperV where it tends to be a problem. Likewise you would never install applications into the Xen Dom0 or directly onto ESXi or into the root of KVM. In the later three cases, licensing doesn't restrict you from doing this but good practice does. In the case of HyperV, it is actually licensing restricted.
-
I'm not following you, I'm afraid. I assume the OP has the correct licences? I thought that when you install HyperV it kind of inserts the hypervisor underneath the existing Windows installation, so you end with a hypervisor and the existing Windows install running as a VM? So the physical DC becomes a virtual DC? Is that not how it works?
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Nope. . . Hyper-V was installed directly into the existing DC02, and VM's setup while the system was functioning.
So they violated the licensing and the machine isn't legit? Or they bought extra licenses to make this okay and just screwed the pooch on design?
This is a pretty major misstep for an MSP. This is Virtualization 101 kind of stuff. Even just understanding what HyperV is, without studying specific best practices, should make it clear to them that this isn't a good thing to do.
-
I can only assumed that they sold us the licensing for it, as they are pretty good with keeping microsoft at bay (I've never heard of any licensing issues with regards to that)
But the implementation is just ass backwards. Export the DC02 functions if you must (build a new VM really) and perform a clean install is how it should've been done.
