Topics regarding Inverted Pyramids Of Doom
-
Here's another case of someone being in an IPOD with two ESXi host and a single SAN hosting the data.
He is specifically looking to add two 10GB Switches to this setup to try and improve write performance.....
Might be time that they consider rebuilding...
-
Here appears to be yet another example of an IPOD in production.
Attempting to improve system performance by adding a 10GB switch to the mixture....
-
And not just a switch, but a single switch, no redundancy and the cheapest one that he can get!
-
I's a bit difficult with this post here. But I really think he's in an IPOD from his most recent post....
-
And another one. Looking at SAN vs VSAN but doesn't know which SAN. How could they choose the SAN route without knowing which SAN to use to make the decision?
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1261829-reliable-easy-to-maintain-san
-
How can these come up so often?
-
Because people automatically assume that SANs make keeping the magic smoke inside that much easier.
When done correctly, I would argue that SANs do... but we've already been down that rabbit trail a few times, lol.
The problem is that when a lot of business look at the cost of building a SAN they don't build in redundancy or plan for component failures or anything like that.
-
@dafyre said:
Because people automatically assume that SANs make keeping the magic smoke inside that much easier.
When done correctly, I would argue that SANs do... but we've already been down that rabbit trail a few times, lol.
The problem is that when a lot of business look at the cost of building a SAN they don't build in redundancy or plan for component failures or anything like that.
I would argue that when done correctly and there is a need, SANs do make keeping the magic smoke inside much easier.... I think the valid need thing is something most companies don't even look into.
-
@dafyre said:
Because people automatically assume that SANs make keeping the magic smoke inside that much easier.
When done correctly, I would argue that SANs do... but we've already been down that rabbit trail a few times, lol.
The problem is that when a lot of business look at the cost of building a SAN they don't build in redundancy or plan for component failures or anything like that.
Even then, they don't add value until you get to large scale. SANs never make things safer. Anything you can do with a SAN you can do safer without.
-
In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.
-
@Dashrender said:
In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.
Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.
Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?
I'm guessing age and standardization? IT hasn't really be around that long compared to the other two. While things change in Accounting and HR it takes a very long time and is usually dictated by laws of some sort.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.
Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?
I'm guessing age and standardization? IT hasn't really be around that long compared to the other two. While things change in Accounting and HR it takes a very long time and is usually dictated by laws of some sort.
Maybe, but IT has that same level of age and standardization around good basic architecture, as least as HR stuff, maybe not accounting. IT actually changes more slowly than those two in that area.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.
Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?
I'm guessing age and standardization? IT hasn't really be around that long compared to the other two. While things change in Accounting and HR it takes a very long time and is usually dictated by laws of some sort.
Maybe, but IT has that same level of age and standardization around good basic architecture, as least as HR stuff, maybe not accounting. IT actually changes more slowly than those two in that area.
As far as the basics? I can see that to some extent.
-
Yeah, accounting and HR have a constantly shifting landscape of laws. IT generally does not. Good practices have been more or less established since 1964 without too much changing. Minor tweaks but the overall ideas have been pretty solid.
-
But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.
IT rarely has that in their corner.
-
@Dashrender said:
But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.
IT rarely has that in their corner.
One could say that about fiduciary responsibility in IT too, and yet they ignore that when sabotaging businesses in that department.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.
IT rarely has that in their corner.
One could say that about fiduciary responsibility in IT too, and yet they ignore that when sabotaging businesses in that department.
That only matters in Public companies, right?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.
IT rarely has that in their corner.
One could say that about fiduciary responsibility in IT too, and yet they ignore that when sabotaging businesses in that department.
That only matters in Public companies, right?
Not exactly, but basically. It is only forced by the SEC in public companies. As a private company if the owners / investors caught someone doing this they could also fire and then sue them as well. But as a private company the investors also have the right to tell the people that wasting money is just fine. In a public company you can't choose to do that unless you are a B Corp and then it is complex in other ways.
-
So the difference is basically in public companies you face the equivalent of a class action and in private ones you face a direct suit. But same risks.
