Domain Controller Down (VM)
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
The major concern I've heard in doing this is that since @wirestyle22 works for medical, his medical software vendor might not support XS or Hyper-V. If this is important to him, then he could stay with ESXi on the new host servers with local storage.
Why would the medical software vendor care what the hypervisor is, they should only care about the local environment which the appliance is installed too.
The vendor should never see the hypervisor (at least with regards to their appliance and support).
LOL - that's great in theory, but in reality the hypervisor can effect things. Granted today this isn't an issue like it used to be. 10 years ago you didn't virtualize PBXs because they had some kind of problem with real time processing (I think - I don't recall the specifics - I know @scottalanmiller knows what it was).
The same can be said here - the software vendor can ask - OK what hardware are you running - oh you're virtualized, well our support only supports VMWare, so we won't bother helping you solve your performance issues until you move to that. Hopefully that won't happen, but it always could. -
@hobbit666 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
They aren't an alternative for SAN, they are SANs. The thinking here is that architecturally there would be very little work to install a SAN from one of those vendors (these are known good SANs) into his current setup.
But he has a SAN, wouldn't dropping in another one still mean he has a IPOD? I'm just not seeing the logic in replacing the current one (unless there is something major wrong with it like only 100MB not giga NIC)
You're right he does have a SAN, but it's a toy SAN, not a good one. The ONLY reason a SAN is being recommended by @scottalanmiller is because of the drop in replacement nature of it. Really, the whole solution needs to be redesigned. @wirestyle22 doesn't need a SAN. at least @wirestyle22 didn't install it
-
@Dashrender Oh I don't disagree, but would you let a random software support tech work on your hypervisor with all of your other VM's or just the one specific VM to their software?
If a software vendor said they "only support" Hyper-V I'd say thanks for your time, we'll be looking for a different software.
Because the software never gets installed to the hypervisor. So they should have no reason to care about the hypervisor.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender Oh I don't disagree, but would you let a random software support tech work on your hypervisor with all of your other VM's or just the one specific VM to their software?
If a software vendor said they "only support" Hyper-V I'd say thanks for your time, we'll be looking for a different software.
Because the software never gets installed to the hypervisor. So they should have no reason to care about the hypervisor.
Dustin - yes, the best situation is to not have vendor lock-in when possible. Sadly this isn't always a possible choice.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender Oh I don't disagree, but would you let a random software support tech work on your hypervisor with all of your other VM's or just the one specific VM to their software?
If a software vendor said they "only support" Hyper-V I'd say thanks for your time, we'll be looking for a different software.
Because the software never gets installed to the hypervisor. So they should have no reason to care about the hypervisor.
Nothing is ever that simple. And it is quite easy for a vendor to know that the OS is installed on a hypervisor and which one. the information is always available.
If a vendor says they only support XX, then when you grant their remote session, they will check.
-
@JaredBusch My point is in regards to the hypervisor.
What hypervisor doesn't present the hardware in a fashion that doesn't work? I get that vendors can have requirements, but to have the requirement of "We only will support ESXi or Hyper-V" just isn't logical.
If the software just doesn't work because the drivers are broken or unavailable then you have a reason. But to outright say "Sorry we won't sell to you if you want to use KVM"
Seems insane.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@JaredBusch My point is in regards to the hypervisor.
What hypervisor doesn't present the hardware in a fashion that doesn't work? I get that vendors can have requirements, but to have the requirement of "We only will support ESXi or Hyper-V" just isn't logical.
If the software just doesn't work because the drivers are broken or unavailable then you have a reason. But to outright say "Sorry we won't sell to you if you want to use KVM"
Seems insane.
It may seem insane to you, but to them, it's one more thing they have to know how works. Again I'll go back to the PBX situation - there was a time when hypervisors where horrible for PBX. Some people tried to do it anyway. the vendors had to draw a line in the sand. I'm not saying it's needed any more, but I don't KNOW that.
-
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
-
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
... but that's a spend that they committed to before he was there.
it's a plan that the previous IT was committed to. Management only because they were probably sold a bill of goods because they put their trust in the wrong person. But we don't actually know any of those details.
That's the same as management committing. If management doesn't care, that's a different issue. Someone took the time to write the checks and commit to the previous decisions.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
-
@hobbit666 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Moving to an HDS, EMC, 3PAR or Nimble is a drop in change that would fix a lot of things.
I'm interested in hearing why these would make a good alternative to the SAN and IPOD?
They are both SANs and IPOD designs. They are the only reasonable tools for building an IPOD. An IPOD makes no sense at this scale, but we are past the point of good decision making and are in architecture triage at this point. So they remain on the table whereas in a greenfield they would not be.
-
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
But damn.. He definitely needs to replace that 100 Mb switch he has at the core of the network.
This is probably the first thing he should do. Falls way below the home line and would be an inexpensive upgrade to gigabit.
Woot, more people mentioning the home line!
Not just below the home line... more than a decade ago it was below it!
-
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
But damn.. He definitely needs to replace that 100 Mb switch he has at the core of the network.
This is probably the first thing he should do. Falls way below the home line and would be an inexpensive upgrade to gigabit.
Well, that depends - I don't consider $3500 inexpensive when looking at the VMWare recommended Brocade switch. If he dumps the SAN he might be able to go with something less expensive and be in a good supported/recommended setup.
Was his SAN doing Fibrechannel or iSCSI?
Has to be iSCSI because only iSCSI can do 100Mb/s. FC never could go that slowly.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
An IPOD is an architectural system design. Where you have 1 storage node (usually a SAN) and
twomultiple servers.It's two or more. Lots of people use three or hundreds. IPODs actually make more sense the more top heavy that they get, because even though their risk goes through the roof, they start to exhibit cost savings. So it is a trade off. At small scale, they are both more risky AND more costly, which is why the SMB normally avoids them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
But damn.. He definitely needs to replace that 100 Mb switch he has at the core of the network.
This is probably the first thing he should do. Falls way below the home line and would be an inexpensive upgrade to gigabit.
Woot, more people mentioning the home line!
Not just below the home line... more than a decade ago it was below it!
I still have a hard time giving this to you Scott - a decade ago Best Buy wasn't selling home routers with Gb switches in them, at least not at prices normal people would be buying.
I'm not talking about IT people and what they do at home - I'm talking consumers. -
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
That is not your decision, get over your ego. You are IT. You are supposed to work the solution for the business needs. If the business has decided that they need software ABC and that the required manufacturer support for it, then yes, you spec and buy what ever support infrastructure is required.
This is not your decision. It is the businesses decision.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
Sure, the best solution would be to dump that vendor and find one that offers a solution that works in VM, but again, not always an option - and if support is tantamount, then you build what you are told for that product.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
But why buy from a vendor that doesn't support good architectural design? I know that there are cases where there is no choice, but I don't believe that they are actually common.
What if your car company said that you couldn't use the seatbelt in their cars? Would you still buy from them or get a car that takes safety seriously?
If the vendor doesn't properly support deploying their software, that's at least a huge mark against them. Is it 100% always a "no way with this vendor?" Maybe not, but it should be close. It suggests a series of bad things, like a vendor trying to get out of doing support, not knowing how IT works, lacking internal support resources... all things that if you want a support product should have you pretty wary of that vendor.
