Windows file server query
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:
Insanely expensive, requires Windows Enterprise licensing and is considered not production ready and has very few large users, of those using it, data loss rates are through the roof. Avoid this at all costs.
@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:
Some of them would never be used. Your software RAID and RAIN systems would be expensive and never get touched, as the Vmware VSAN is already handling that stuff.
I also think so, that is why I re-thought the whole idea of Storage Spaces and Storage Spaces Direct, while good feature (but nonetheless you spoke of it as not enterprise ready) has no place in VMWare's solution.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
I also think so, that is why I re-thought the whole idea of Storage Spaces and Storage Spaces Direct, while good feature (but nonetheless you spoke of it as not enterprise ready) has no place in VMWare's solution.
Why are you looking at three hosts, instead of two? There is no capacity planning data, but the description makes it sound more likely that two would be all you need (and a far better solution.) Is the third host just a favour to the salesman to add 50% cost onto the project?
-
@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
These three suck and just cause issues.
Ideally, they sound great and look great on paper, but in practice, they break and cause issues the more you use it and the more users use it.But quite the contrary on our present physical install...but offline files are contained in few users at the moment.
@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
ABE works as it's designed, never ran into anything with that that would be a reason to not use it when it fits the business needs.
Have read about it years ago but has not implemented it. Will be trying to convince management to use it...such great feature to be left out.
@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
DFSN works great and is a great way to not have shares based on servers or IPs. I do recommend DFSN when able.
DFSR, depends on the use case... generally it's fine, but sometimes can cause issues depending on your setup, what you are replicating, and where it's replicating to.@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
I'm going to assume that you mean ability for a VM to be "restored" to another host...
Define site? Single building? Skyscraper with multiple floors? Single campus with multiple buildings?
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but DFSN is useful in single sites just so you can get away from server names and IPs.This is for a single site and buying a large server with storage with it so I don't think we would need a DFS-N for that, for a single file server that is. I was initially looking into replicating to another virtual server for availability, but then if server can be restarted to another host, then it should not be needed. Correct me if I'm wrong pls.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
This is for a single site and buying a large server with storage with it so I don't think we would need a DFS-N for that, for a single file server that is. I was initially looking into replicating to another virtual server for availability, but then if server can be restarted to another host, then it should not be needed. Correct me if I'm wrong pls.
This depends on your specific HA needs. Do you need to avoid a few seconds or minutes of downtime, then you need HA. Otherwise, you are fine with a rapid recovery or restart process. There is no way to know this for sure without knowing your specific business needs.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
This is for a single site and buying a large server with storage with it so I don't think we would need a DFS-N for that,
Correct, you do not need DFS-N for that whatsoever.
-
@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
Has always worked well in my experience. I've used it for a long time, and used it on massive data stores... never any data loss, but then again, never had any issues to have to mess with it.
Depending on who you ask, you may get some horror stories.@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
This is the only way to use it, really.
I have file servers virtualized that use Dedupe (via Hyper-V). Never any data corruption.
But I wouldn't base it on my experience alone, others have had issues.I was thinking the same but have read some horror stories. It would have been nice as we have duplicating files in network shares.
What backup solution have you used?
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
Has always worked well in my experience. I've used it for a long time, and used it on massive data stores... never any data loss, but then again, never had any issues to have to mess with it.
Depending on who you ask, you may get some horror stories.@tim_g said in Windows file server query:
This is the only way to use it, really.
I have file servers virtualized that use Dedupe (via Hyper-V). Never any data corruption.
But I wouldn't base it on my experience alone, others have had issues.I was thinking the same but have read some horror stories. It would have been nice as we have duplicating files in network shares.
It's nice in that duplicates are bad. But all deduplication comes at a cost and it's always about weighing the cost against the benefits. How much benefit do you estimate that deduplication will have for you?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:
I think the biggest problem that I see here is a list of tech, without any goals. Flip it around.
Define your goals, then work towards them with the tech. Don't use tech just because it's on a list somewhere. That's how you end up with a disaster that cost a fortune, and doesn't do what is required. What are you trying to accomplish with all of this tech?
We don't know why you have any of it, so commenting on whether you should use it or not comes down to just ruling out tech that isn't production ready and guessing at the rest.
Like dedupe, nothing wrong with it, it's a great technology, but it doesn't make sense for most companies. So without knowing why you are looking at it, we have nothing to go on.
The goal is to virtualize...then at a latter point, upgrade to 2016 (or if boss really wanted 2012R2). Just listing what I thought I was using before then have been doubting if it was really needed.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
The goal is to virtualize...
That's not a goal, that's a means to a goal. No business anywhere cares if they are virtualized, they care about making money. Virtualization is a smart way to help do that, but it is not a goal itself, ever.
Things of it as a means to an end. You never do a means just to do a means, you do it because the end is valuable.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
..then at a latter point, upgrade to 2016 (or if boss really wanted 2012R2).
Also, not a goal. All of these things are technical pieces, which can never be goals.
WHY virtualize? WHY use Windows? Why spend money on new hardware? Why buy VMware?
If we asked the same thing about VMware, is the "goal" to give money to the sales person?
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
Just listing what I thought I was using before then have been doubting if it was really needed.
Right, but that isn't useful. And it is a bad practice because it reinforces bad thinking. For example, the most important thing to do in a planning stage like this is identify the goals. Listing tech you might want to use in a vacuum without any consideration for the goals or business needs starts to make it seem reasonable to think of the IT itself as the goal, rather than existing to service the business needs. And that's exactly what we see resulting - the "goals" that you are listing are technical, not business. So the thing we worry might happen, happened.
Listing the tech without goals doesn't give us any means of providing useful feedback. We can't tell you if three hosts, VMware, VSAN, Windows, or even a file server are in any way useful to your business, let alone if DFS, Dedupe or what RAID type is needed.
Does that make more sense? It's like asking us to recommend the suspension tunings for a car when we don't know if you have a car, need a car, or even have a road to drive on yet - or even if you have a reason to need to go somewhere.
-
"Don't confuse goals with desires. c. Decide what you really want in life by reconciling your goals and your desires. d. Don't mistake the trappings of success for success itself." - Ray Dalio
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
I was, before, trying to group users based on their access but one of the boss wanted to check who has access to which folder/file and not interested in group--he wanted names--so I am left with retaining individual access (though made a group for share access).
Role-based access is the way to go. This site has a good example using role-based.
http://www.yster.org/role-based-access-control/ -
@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:
You mean a salesman is running the show and the boss is just throwing the company's money to them? Every hypervisor comes with "proper" support. VMware has great support, but that's neither here nor there if it isn't a sensible product for your business.
Not quite, not quite there yet as my boss and the vendor still have to meet. But she made clear she wanted virtualization with VMWare. 2 years prior, I have made a point to virtualize, presenting (then good solution) XenServer and have read about HA-Lizard, I also introduced Hyper-V....she insisted on VMWare, let's see where it goes :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows file server query:
Why are you looking at three hosts, instead of two? There is no capacity planning data, but the description makes it sound more likely that two would be all you need (and a far better solution.) Is the third host just a favour to the salesman to add 50% cost onto the project?
That's the other thing! My initial proposition is with XenServer for 2 hosts with HA-Lizard. VMWare presented with HCI with boss watching -- 3 hosts and the game changes.
VMWare passed me to their local partner who echoes the same. Initially wanting 3 hosts for HCI but I have have them pass a proposition for HPE VSA which did not happen as according to the sales personnel, the future of HPE VSA is unclear since HP bought and is favoring SimpliVity.
They passed a higher quote for a traditional 2 host but with SAN (2-storage clusters).
Boss wanted to have local implementation and local support so StarWind is out of the picture...for now. I am using a personal email account in contacting StarWind and present to management when necessary.
-
The top level goal is "make money" obviously, for any company. But realistic working goals that IT will respond to could be...
- Lower cost
- Facilitate the business getting more done
- Lower the risk profile of data loss
Things like that. For each decision being made it should be in a context of "how does this service the business", rather than "how can the business buy us cool tech."
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
That's the other thing! My initial proposition is with XenServer for 2 hosts with HA-Lizard. VMWare presented with HCI with boss watching -- 3 hosts and the game changes.
So there WAS a salesman. Other than spending 400% of the money, what was game changing?
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
VMWare passed me to their local partner who echoes the same.
So ANOTHER salesman is trying to sell you the same thing that his upstream salesman pays him to sell..... why are salesman being talked to?
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
Boss wanted to have local implementation and local support so StarWind is out of the picture...for now.
Right, because it doesn't support the salesmen that she likes. It's really clear that the commonality here is getting money into the hands of specific people. Never once is a business need mentioned, only "this is a way to get money to that guy."
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Windows file server query:
They passed a higher quote for a traditional 2 host but with SAN (2-storage clusters).
-
