Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
How are you making the assumption that restoring to physical is as quick as restoring a VM.
Let's use an example, physical server catches on fire, you need to completely replace it but have the ability to restore to dissimilar hardware.
So you have to, purchase hardware (wait for it to arrive, connect it up) and then restore it.
If you have a hypervisor that dies, you can send the VM's to a datacenter in a matter of minutes (if using a local provider) and have everything back up and running.
Or you could even have the dead Hypervisor in a HA mode, where the VM is live on the other host as soon as an issue is detected?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
How are you making the assumption that restoring to physical is as quick as restoring a VM.
Let's use an example, physical server catches on fire, you need to completely replace it but have the ability to restore to dissimilar hardware.
So you have to, purchase hardware (wait for it to arrive, connect it up) and then restore it.
If you have a hypervisor that dies, you can send the VM's to a datacenter in a matter of minutes (if using a local provider) and have everything back up and running.
Or you could even have the dead Hypervisor in a HA mode, where the VM is live on the other host as soon as an issue is detected?
We aren't taking about restoring a VM. We are talking about converting from physical to virtual vs restoring to physical.
The person in that post doesn't have virtual, just physical. So the time to convert to virtual has to be similar to the time taken to restore from physical since it's the same data.
-
I think you missed the point I was making originally, which was if he was virtualized this wouldn't be as big of an issue that it is.
Which "oh shit we got crypto-locked at 12:42AM" OK revert the VM.
The conversion process is whatever time it takes, I even said that. But the time to recover a physical only system versus a Virtual one is way more time intensive.
-
But the time to recover a physical only system versus a Virtual one is way more time intensive.
But like I said I can do snapshots and file level restores physically also. Same amount of time as virtual.
-
So yes while being virtual would be best, saying "I don't feel bad at all" like they're some kind of moron is not something that should be said. As @JaredBusch pointed out, it's probably SBS. Hyper-V sucked back then. So you're left with paying for VMware or using a Linux system that you might not know.
-
Even if the system is SBS, that doesn't excuse the fact that there are gaping holes in the configuration of this businesses infrastructure. To not feel bad is the business (more than likely) saying "no we don't need this or that" as if the business owner is the expert providing the recommendation.
Which if they were the expert they would say we need to do X Y and Z and backup to here like this this and that.
It is poor business decisions that cause this (even if you have a bad IT person) you can get a better solution than what was done here. To do business you have to spend money. It's a cost of business.
If VMWare is too expensive and you can't get any talent to help build a reliable solution, and you're still on SBS (presumably an older version) why haven't you invested in your business infrastructure. IT keeps the business running, but they can't do everything without anything.
Excusing this is as bad as implementing it today when there are so many great sources of information. It takes initiative and a little bit of effort to be far better off than the OP of that topic, which clearly he isn't motivated.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
"no we don't need this or that" as if the business owner is the expert providing the recommendation.
I'm the guy that saved us $30-$40k a year while giving us improved up-time and functionality. I am still told no when they don't understand something even though I have clarified it down to an unbelievable level.
Someone play the worlds smallest violin for me
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
But the time to recover a physical only system versus a Virtual one is way more time intensive.
Why?
-
@Carnival-Boy said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
But the time to recover a physical only system versus a Virtual one is way more time intensive.
Why?
Dependencies on hardware, primarily. Fewer options, more to go wrong (a lot more.)
-
I know this isn't a a bad practice by it's self. What I am specifically calling bad practice is keeping software around for decades and not updating it and attempting to keep a Windows XP system around to run legacy software. ..
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I know this isn't a a bad practice by it's self. What I am specifically calling bad practice is keeping software around for decades and not updating it and attempting to keep a Windows XP system around to run legacy software. ..
All too common unfortunately. We are forced to use a state website that was designed to be used with Internet Explorer 6. I shit you not.
-
@wirestyle22 IE6 nice, so I assume you have a Windows 2000 VM somewhere?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@wirestyle22 IE6 nice, so I assume you have a Windows 2000 VM somewhere?
umm what?
XP came with 6.
-
@JaredBusch Did it?
It's been so long since I've (actually had to use besides that one PST issue) that I don't remember any more.
-
Easy way to remember... IE 4 with NT4, IE 5 with NT 5 (2000)
Then after that it gets blurry. But IE6 came with the NT after 5 (which was 5.1.)
IIS4 was on NT4, too.
-
@scottalanmiller Primarily because IE6 existed in limbo for so long, and Microsoft began changing their versioning of NT, at least in style. I think the initial idea was it was supposed to follow along those lines of each major release of NT, IE, IIS, etc was the same since they were supposed to be so "integrated,", but perhaps things fell apart as priorities changed. Office's version system is insane too though, but that's been true for much longer.
Anyway IE6 came with 2000 with SP2 and beyond. One would hope that if you've got 2000, you've got IE6+ because that means you've got at least all service packs installed. And if XP, IE7+
I remember having to setup NT 4 servers, by the end it was about 8 or so, but they were numbered in such a way like 6A and 6B to make them seem like less. It was funny because with the initially install, even in 1999 you couldn't go to Windows Update directly because the IE installed did not support file names ending in anything other than .htm(l). What a nightmare.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch Did it?
It's been so long since I've (actually had to use besides that one PST issue) that I don't remember any more.
Compatibility mode ended up working thank god, but their IT department actually told me to downgrade IE until it worked. That was their solution.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller Primarily because IE6 existed in limbo for so long, and Microsoft began changing their versioning of NT, at least in style. I think the initial idea was it was supposed to follow along those lines of each major release of NT, IE, IIS, etc was the same since they were supposed to be so "integrated,", but perhaps things fell apart as priorities changed. Office's version system is insane too though, but that's been true for much longer.
Anyway IE6 came with 2000 with SP2 and beyond. One would hope that if you've got 2000, you've got IE6+ because that means you've got at least all service packs installed. And if XP, IE7+
I remember having to setup NT 4 servers, by the end it was about 8 or so, but they were numbered in such a way like 6A and 6B to make them seem like less. It was funny because with the initially install, even in 1999 you couldn't go to Windows Update directly because the IE installed did not support file names ending in anything other than .htm(l). What a nightmare.
Before that, 1997 or 1998 you had to do NT4 update to SP3, do the major extra release, then upgrade again to 6a. Such a huge pain.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch Did it?
It's been so long since I've (actually had to use besides that one PST issue) that I don't remember any more.
Compatibility mode ended up working thank god, but their IT department actually told me to downgrade IE until it worked. That was their solution.
Typical, though I expect it more from crappy programmers
-
Someone mark the calendar. I agreed with @DustinB3403
