Understanding Server 2012r2 Clustering
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Not that I have a SAN or HA, I'm just interested. I was interested at the time I considered a SAN (a few years ago) by the fact that my reseller recommend against DAGs on the grounds of cost (additional licencing) and complexity, but recommended in favour of a SAN (which also has additional costs and complexity).
Remember the long conversation that we had about how you trust your sales people and don't feel that the financial compensation for selling certain solutions was influencing them and that they acted altruistically? This is the text book example that we use for what a vendor taking advantage of you looking for free advice looks for. The article that I wrote was because of the prevalence of this exact case (the Inverted Pyramid of Doom SAN sales tactic.)
This is what what I was warning you about looks like. This is a case where it is insanely obvious that what the vendor was trying to sell was completely illogical, and luckily you caught that, but by asking a salesperson for architectural advice you were both asking them something that they were not paid to understand and something outside of their likely skill set and also to give you advice that if they tell you what is good for you they don't get paid and if they tell you what you pay them to tell you, the advice is reckless.
This gets mentioned over on SW a few times a week, about how vendors specifically use the IPOD design because it is really easy to trick management into feeling that it is reliable because the words "redundant" and "SAN" appear while the vendor makes big profits, keeps the purchase price down and passes all risk on to the customer. It's the most common example of why getting advice from the vendor is a dangerous thing to do because their interests and your interests are not aligned and they have absolutely no obligation to giving good advice that is in your interest because no such paid professional advice relationship exists or, even if one does, as a sales person it is absolutely understood that they are compensated for making profitable sales regardless of any other additional relationship.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Exchange and SQL Server are both designed to recover from a crash. At worst, shouldn't failover be at least as good as a crash consistent recovery?
Most things are designed to recover from a crash. That doesn't mean that you won't lose some data or that it always works. Exchange and SQL Server are quite robust, but failover that acts like you've had a disaster isn't a full failover.
For most companies, finding out that their failover is "only as good as a crash" is quite upsetting.
-
@Dashrender said:
When he told me that I freaked out on him... told him why this was a horrible solution - he didn't seem to care. "It's to late" he said, "It's already done and installed and working."
This is one of those excuses that really bad IT pros seem to use a lot. "It is working." They redefine what "working" means as it suites them. It's like driving around without a seatbelt on. Sure, as long as you are driving, it is "working." But the seatbelt is there for when you hit a tree. When you go through the windshield and lie bleeding out on the ground, will you still say "it is working?"
The point of good design, in this particular base, is to get better reliability and speed at a lower price. If the IT pro defines what he has done as "working" it means that being cost effective and protecting the business financially aren't part of his job. What exactly IS his job then? It sounds like he feels his job is to funnel company money to a vendor and not to provide good IT advice or service. In fact, by using the vendor to do his job for him, he likely didn't do his job as the IT pro at all!
That things are "too late" is one thing. But claiming that it doesn't matter, fixing a discovered problem isn't important or that it is working highlights what he feels his job is or how little he cares about the company he is working for. He's not trying to do the right thing, he is hoping not to get found out that he scammed the business and tried to get away without providing any technical expertise and letting a sales person hoodwink him while he thought he was getting away without having to know his job.
-
It's amazing, given how obviously illogical, how many discussions and how much documentation there is out there about the foolishness of the single SAN Inverted Pyramid of Doom design that any VAR would take the risk of recommending it knowing that tons of IT pros will know instantly that they are being scammed and that they should drop the vendor like a hot rock. But, the reality is, if a VAR is being asked for advice, they know that the customer is trying to get away without doing the research and isn't sure what to do and simply by being asked for the advice know that they can get away with some pretty crazy stuff. So the group of people that will call out the vendors for doing this stuff are the ones who naturally don't engage the vendors in this way making it very safe for the vendors to try so pretty crazy sales tactics and approaches.
-
The flip side to this is that asking the VAR is considered the research to most of them. And really, until I joined SW several years ago I was doing exactly the same thing.
-
@Dashrender said:
The flip side to this is that asking the VAR is considered the research to most of them.
In the SMB there seems to be this really broad acceptance of using sales people as IT advisers. It is very widespread. I never saw it happen until being in SW. Literally never. I had no idea that it was done at all so came as a pretty big shock.
It's not IT specific in any way, using sales people for advice is just problematic.
-
Check out SAN topics all the advice to get them are from Sellers, and the HP one especially is full of BS. Yet they still go with the sales peoples advice. The HP one says the SANs of two aren't the same as your dad's SAN, they are much more reliable or something like that.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Check out SAN topics all the advice to get them are from Sellers, and the HP one especially is full of BS. Yet they still go with the sales peoples advice. The HP one says the SANs of two aren't the same as your dad's SAN, they are much more reliable or something like that.
I blame management. Instead of looking for their IT staff to provide IT services, they make them just people who buy things from others who provide IT. It's the IT oursource model. Except they refuse to pay for professional IT services. So instead they go to vendors and get advice from the sales people for free and say "this is just the cost of what we need." It's an illusion that is created by bad management. They don't get the skills that they need internally and refuse to let people buy advice, which is really 95% of what IT actually is. Anyone can do the physical parts of IT.
So once management does this, they create a situation where the internal staff isn't sure what to do and isn't able to hire the IT people that they need (externally) and are stuck getting free advice which actually costs them a fortune in risk, bad advice and over purchasing.
The internal staff has no reason to give advice, even if they know better, because it just adds risks to themselves. Why take on risk to save a company money that obviously doesn't respect IT and doesn't care about making money? Why should IT take on that risk? So they don't. They let a vendor oversell and then have the benefit of having someone to "blame" when the company loses money or goes under. How can it be IT's fault when their only job is to sign off on whatever a sales person sold to them?
It's management making IT a "purchaser" rather than a "professional" that creates this situation. If management expected IT to research, give advice and protect the business this really could not happen. But when IT's job is just to talk to the sales people on behalf of management, what else could realistically happen? Once again, management makes their internal staff not be aligned with the company's goals. Why would IT work against its own interests when management are the ones who created the conflict of interests?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The flip side to this is that asking the VAR is considered the research to most of them.
In the SMB there seems to be this really broad acceptance of using sales people as IT advisers. It is very widespread. I never saw it happen until being in SW. Literally never. I had no idea that it was done at all so came as a pretty big shock.
It's not IT specific in any way, using sales people for advice is just problematic.
So where do the IBM's and Mutual of Omaha's (non technical company) get their advice from?
-
@Dashrender said:
So where do the IBM's and Mutual of Omaha's (non technical company) get their advice from?
Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking where does IBM go to get IT advice when they need to make decisions?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So where do the IBM's and Mutual of Omaha's (non technical company) get their advice from?
Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking where does IBM go to get IT advice when they need to make decisions?
Yes.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So where do the IBM's and Mutual of Omaha's (non technical company) get their advice from?
Not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking where does IBM go to get IT advice when they need to make decisions?
Yes.
They have the money for lots of in house testing. SMBs don't.
-
Companies like IBM, Mutual of Omaha or others have several ways that they get expertise, all very obvious, I hope...
-
They have internal IT that is held accountable for doing IT, not for buying "solutions". IT is accountable for doing IT well. This is critical. If IT has no responsibility for doing IT, why would it? It's cheaper and easier not to. So the bulk of their expertise is internal.
-
They bring in consultants that work internally to augment internal IT. IBM specifically uses shadow IT so that they can have a main IT entity that is unskilled and political but does nothing. And shadow IT does runs the actual company and makes the real stuff happen.
-
When the above two need additional advice, which is really, really rare, they bring in external consulting firms and pay for consulting. They do not use sales people for advice.
-
Sales people are kept at arm's length and used to pressure vendors for deals and to get access to the latest vendor news. The sales people do not construct solutions.
-
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
They have the money for lots of in house testing. SMBs don't.
In house testing is one thing. But SMBs have access to all the industry knowledge, training, expertise, etc. They just often choose not to spend money there because being "IT expertise" is seen as a loss but buying "stuff" is not. So they spend a fortune on "things" they don't need because they didn't hire the people to tell them what to do.
-
It doesn't require lots of money or testing or anything like that to know what a SAN is, where the risks are going to come from, how to engage outside vendors, etc. Those things are just common sense, industry knowledge, standard training or things you can research easily. Some things require testing, like Windows patching, that those require that the IBMs work differently than the SMBs. But lots of things do not require that.
-
So it boils down to training and research - I suppose finding the needed research is not as simple as Scott might suggest, i.e. even google searching doesn't always lead you where you want, or more importantly, need to be to get correct information.
The other type of research would be buying the equipment yourself and simply using it. This is something that clearly Scott's pocketbook can afford as it seems he's buying new VM's from cloud service providers almost weekly (at least recently).
Granted most IT people (probably even me) aren't really good at their jobs - we don't look at a SAN for example and instantly know that it's a horrible mess because, well it's 'obvious.' Instead it's only after being exposed to them, or reading or knowing other who are exposed to them that we realize the pitfalls of things like SANs.
-
@Dashrender said:
we don't look at a SAN for example and instantly know that it's a horrible mess because, well it's 'obvious.'
A SAN in itself isn't always a horrible mess (some are) it's the implementation of the SAN that's a mess and using them when they are not needed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@Dashrender said:
we don't look at a SAN for example and instantly know that it's a horrible mess because, well it's 'obvious.'
A SAN in itself isn't always a horrible mess (some are) it's the implementation of the SAN that's a mess and using them when they are not needed.
Really - that's all you took from my comment? Of course SAN isn't always a horrible mess, I was just making a point without being exact.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Remember the long conversation that we had about how you trust your sales people and don't feel that the financial compensation for selling certain solutions was influencing them and that they acted altruistically? This is the text book example that we use for what a vendor taking advantage of you looking for free advice looks for.
Er, no, I don't, because I never said that. I know that in your binary world I must either trust vendors 100% or I think they're all lying bastards out to rip me off, but in my grey world the reality sits somewhere in the middle. I get advice from vendors, but I also do my own research. I find the way you constantly lump all sales people into the same grubby boat to be pretty disrespectful of the thousands of them they are motivated by doing right by their customers.
Anyway, I only posted originally to find out how exactly why Exchange should never be installed on a SAN. VMware advertise using HA with Exchange and Microsoft officially support it. This is the first time I've heard it's a complete no-no. Are you saying VMware are lying and trying to rip me off as well? http://www.vmware.com/business-critical-apps/exchange/
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I find the way you constantly lump all sales people into the same grubby boat to be pretty disrespectful of the thousands of them they are motivated by doing right by their customers.
And I find that there is no disrespect until you change what I said from saying how they are paid into them being in a grubby boat. I, in no way whatsoever, suggest that the sales people are being bad at all. That's something you read into it. It's how they are engaged and expected to act against their own interest and the financial direction given by their customers that I think is bad, not the sales people.
Why do you feel that that would reflect badly on salespeople at all?
