You Cannot Virtualize That
-
You said
@MattSpeller said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
I guess that's enough by it's self but I'm left feeling.... unsatisfied.
I guess I didn't feel that way because I took a more generalized look at the article, and didn't limit it to only virtualization.
-
@Dashrender said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@DustinB3403 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
There is huge potential for businesses in this space.
Huge potentials for what in what space?
Maybe you mean:
The bit about vendor space where existing vendors simply don't support common best practice and how there is a vacuum should be made more verbose.
That maybe true - OK well we know it is, but it would often require the vendor who makes the crappy product to provide information they probably are unwilling to make.
For example, I have a distribution client. They have to use the manufacture's software to gather the information they need to provide quotes to re sellers. In order to compete in this space, someone would have to write software that has access to the APIs of the manufacturer, if that's even possible. etc etc
Being a super small market share, and the likely denial from the manufacturer, this project would never get off the ground.In that case the issue is bigger but NOT one of APIs, right? It would be one of replicating bad software AND a bad manufacturer.
-
@MattSpeller said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
That's great and all, for sure we all agree virtualization is best. Not sure where else you're going with this. I guess that's enough by it's self but I'm left feeling.... unsatisfied.
I think you could cut all this down a lot by making a clearer point:
"Make virtualization support a key factor when shopping for new things".
or
"The importance of checking the recommended setup for new toys: don't get stuck with gear that does not virtualize"
I'm not sure what to tell you man...
It's not fully about virtualization, though, it's about not being production ready and when you can identify that. And disputing the "we need X so that we can run in production" when X implies you can't run in production. It's pointing out the paradox of buying hobby class software in a business using production needs as an excuse.
-
@Dashrender said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
You said
@MattSpeller said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
I guess that's enough by it's self but I'm left feeling.... unsatisfied.
I guess I didn't feel that way because I took a more generalized look at the article, and didn't limit it to only virtualization.
Maybe the title is just wrong
-
My response to the Title would be: "Wanna bet?"
Sure, you'd lose support if you virtualized something they told you not to... but companies are trying to get out of doing support anyway.
But like anything else, that'd be more of a business decision than an IT one.
-
@dafyre said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
My response to the Title would be: "Wanna bet?"
Sure, you'd lose support if you virtualized something they told you not to... but companies are trying to get out of doing support anyway.
But like anything else, that'd be more of a business decision than an IT one.
Should be all one and the same. All IT decisions should be in a business context. The idea that there could be a business vs IT decision should not exist and implies a management structure that isn't aware of what the role of IT even is. The only reason that IT cares about virtualization is because it, too, is a business decision.
-
"You Cannot Virtualize That" = "Challenge accepted"
I've run into this with a very popular 3D drafting software company. In the end, I was just convinced that the "you cannot visualize that" mandate is simply a way for them to blame virtualization for problems with their software. In other words, if you have a problem, and their support cannot figure out the solution, they will always come back to the fact that you virtualized their product, which is "not supported."
Also, why isn't virtualize in my computer's dictionary?
-
@fuznutz04 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
Also, why isn't virtualize in my computer's dictionary?
Because many of the browsers actually don't have the word in their dictionaries...
-
@DustinB3403 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@fuznutz04 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
Also, why isn't virtualize in my computer's dictionary?
Because many of the browsers actually don't have the word in their dictionaries...
I know, I'm just pointing it that I don't like it. haha -
I've had two software vendors tell me these exact words. In both cases, I was able to virtualize their products without issue. One even had the audacity to say that the SQL server supporting the application couldn't be virtualized IN A 3 TIER environment.
As far as support, I don't necessarily tell them it's virtualized, and have yet to have them not support the issue nor fix the issue. In my mind there is no difference between an application on a virtual box and one on a physical box.
-
@pchiodo said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
I've had two software vendors tell me these exact words. In both cases, I was able to virtualize their products without issue. One even had the audacity to say that the SQL server supporting the application couldn't be virtualized IN A 3 TIER environment.
Even worse, Not even aware that MS pushes for best practices themselves and thinks that they can either bluff about something so obvious and/or doesn't know the basics of their own requirements! This implies that either they are totally untrustworth and/or incompetent on the very things you have to trust them to support!
-
@pchiodo said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
As far as support, I don't necessarily tell them it's virtualized, and have yet to have them not support the issue nor fix the issue. In my mind there is no difference between an application on a virtual box and one on a physical box.
There isn't, it's all the same. And if it is virtual or not is really none of their business.
-
@fuznutz04 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
In other words, if you have a problem, and their support cannot figures out that you are virtualized, they will refuse to give you any support.
out the solution, they will always come back to the fact that you virtualized their product, which is "not supported."FTFY.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dafyre said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@fuznutz04 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
In other words, if you have a problem, and their support cannot figures out that you are virtualized, they will refuse to give you any support.
out the solution, they will always come back to the fact that you virtualized their product, which is "not supported."FTFY.
I would argue with them, and have done so on other issues. This is especially true when they say the application needs to be reinstalled. This is a clear sign they do not know their application.
At the end of the day, it's their application, and as long as it is running on a supported OS with the minimum HD requirements, they have to support it.
I also have no problem moving up the food chain, and if that takes talking to the head of the company, and explaining the result of bad reviews, then so be it.
-
@pchiodo said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@dafyre said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@fuznutz04 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
In other words, if you have a problem, and their support cannot figures out that you are virtualized, they will refuse to give you any support.
out the solution, they will always come back to the fact that you virtualized their product, which is "not supported."FTFY.
I would argue with them, and have done so on other issues. This is especially true when they say the application needs to be reinstalled. This is a clear sign they do not know their application.
At the end of the day, it's their application, and as long as it is running on a supported OS with the minimum HD requirements, they have to support it.
I also have no problem moving up the food chain, and if that takes talking to the head of the company, and explaining the result of bad reviews, then so be it.
Been down that road a time or two... and surprisingly, once we got past the first level of management involved, the company was really responsive.
-
@aaron said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
We are long past the point where running systems non-virtualized is considered acceptable
/me looks around at servers
I think it's ok to not virtualize
Doesn't BB cluster their entire farm? I thought virtualization was an effective necessity at that scale. You manage the servers without them being clustered in any way? I thought that the pods were nodes in a single farm.
-
@pchiodo said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@dafyre said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@fuznutz04 said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
In other words, if you have a problem, and their support cannot figures out that you are virtualized, they will refuse to give you any support.
out the solution, they will always come back to the fact that you virtualized their product, which is "not supported."FTFY.
I would argue with them, and have done so on other issues. This is especially true when they say the application needs to be reinstalled. This is a clear sign they do not know their application.
At the end of the day, it's their application, and as long as it is running on a supported OS with the minimum HD requirements, they have to support it.
I also have no problem moving up the food chain, and if that takes talking to the head of the company, and explaining the result of bad reviews, then so be it.
Lots don't have to. They make a contract saying that they won't support it if it is installed well.
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@scottalanmiller said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
@aaron said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
said in You Cannot Virtualize That:
We are long past the point where running systems non-virtualized is considered acceptable
/me looks around at servers
I think it's ok to not virtualize
Doesn't BB cluster their entire farm? I thought virtualization was an effective necessity at that scale. You manage the servers without them being clustered in any way? I thought that the pods were nodes in a single farm
Oh they're clustered. I was thinking of a specific pod not being virtualized by itself. As in they aren't running a hypervisor. And we do have virtualized stuff around too.
That cluster is really the virtualization, the nodes are below that level. We had another thread discussing this previously. Clusters are not always virtualized at the node level because the node is like the CPU, not a server and the entire cluster is really the computer and the cluster manager is the real hypervisor. Workloads run on the cluster, not on the nodes. Each node remains replacable as just part of the overall "Computer" which is, virtualized.
