Storage Question
-
Haha!
So let's start working through this as a refresher.
Biggest thing from yesterday...
You still think it's a good risk not to have a second domain controller. I was able to stop the paperwork, so that will indeed save me $800 or so on a license and a few thousand on another server.
The only other thing I thought of was that if the server goes down, I lose my DC, and files serer, and mail server. But this new thing should be pretty darn reliable, so that's probably a good risk to take as well.
-
@BRRABill said:
You still think it's a good risk not to have a second domain controller. I was able to stop the paperwork, so that will indeed save me $800 or so on a license and a few thousand on another server.
In the light of day, it still seems like the right thing to do. That you can save the $800 makes it a pretty significant win.
-
if you split the load over two server, you're still loosing 50% of your stuff, and how usable is your business with one but not the other?
-
It was technically day yesterday when we decided.
Not just the $800 ... also the cost of another server.
-
@BRRABill said:
It was technically day yesterday when we decided.
Not just the $800 ... also the cost of another server.
And power, and cooling, and management.
-
@BRRABill said:
The only other thing I thought of was that if the server goes down, I lose my DC, and files serer, and mail server. But this new thing should be pretty darn reliable, so that's probably a good risk to take as well.
Yes, of course, but those things are tied together, right? So if one goes down the others may be useless or at least decline in value? Better to have fewer things to fail and fail all at once much of the time than more things to fail that likely fail at different times. Only have one thing to keep running, one thing to fix and everything is up or down.
-
@Dashrender said:
if you split the load over two server, you're still loosing 50% of your stuff, and how usable is your business with one but not the other?
Yeah I guess I was thinking it would be easier to spin in up off a backup, but it wouldn't be that much worse to do it twice. Plus I am considering outsourcing the e-mail in the near future anyway.
-
@BRRABill said:
@Dashrender said:
if you split the load over two server, you're still loosing 50% of your stuff, and how usable is your business with one but not the other?
Yeah I guess I was thinking it would be easier to spin in up off a backup, but it wouldn't be that much worse to do it twice. Plus I am considering outsourcing the e-mail in the near future anyway.
There shouldn't be a near future. NOW is when you should be doing it... You're already making a change. Change it all at once. One less move to do later.
-
OK, next comment from yesterday that got me thinking...
Someone mentioned about waiting for Server 2016.
Is THAT a good idea? Considering we aren't sure when it's coming out, and since I am moving from 2003 (not 2008), and I need an OS now...
I looked into Software Assurance but it adds about 50% to the cost, so not sure it is worth it.
Thoughts?
-
-
@BRRABill said:
Is THAT a good idea? Considering we aren't sure when it's coming out, and since I am moving from 2003 (not 2008), and I need an OS now...
I looked into Software Assurance but it adds about 50% to the cost, so not sure it is worth it.
If SA is not worth it and you've put up with 2003 this long, I would definitely wait. It's two years newer of an OS, that's a long time in IT equipment terms.
-
Server 2016 should be out the first part of next year (heck we could still see it this year).
I'd say wait unless you want to buy SA (not only for server, but also for the CALs)
-
Then I would have a new server sitting around for a few months, and probably a lot of questions.
-
@BRRABill said:
Then I would have a new server sitting around for a few months, and probably a lot of questions.
LOL - we didn't tell you to order the server now
Kidding of course. You're not the first, nor will you be the last to come to a forum and say " hey I have this stuff, this was my thinking" only to be told that wasn't really the smart/correct way to go about things. -
If you want, you can install Hyper-V 2012R2 now, and P2V some of the old servers to it...
Then when Windows 2016 is released, buy it, then do the actual software side migration. At least for now it would look like you're using the hardware, which you would be. -
@BRRABill said:
Then I would have a new server sitting around for a few months, and probably a lot of questions.
You could practice with HyperV
Give you time to decide if you prefer HyperV or XenServer. -
@Dashrender said:
If you want, you can install Hyper-V 2012R2 now, and P2V some of the old servers to it...
Then when Windows 2016 is released, buy it, then do the actual software side migration. At least for now it would look like you're using the hardware, which you would be.Might make extra work when he is ready to move up to 2016, though.
-
absolutely true, but if management is hounding him...
One thing, he'll get practice P2Ving, and upgrading Hyper-V that way.
-
True
He could practice that without moving production over too -
Or he could use the spare time to move to hosted email and eliminate that from the migration process when 2016 releases
