The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3
-
@MattSpeller Just one server? We do the same, but 2 servers at each site.
-
@aaronstuder said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@MattSpeller Just one server? We do the same, but 2 servers at each site.
We're at 5 at primary, 2 at secondary, 1 at a remote
Could probably replace the 5 with two current nicely spec'd ones but $$$$$$$$$$$$
-
@MattSpeller You sound like us
-
@aaronstuder said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@MattSpeller You sound like us
Broke SMB sounds similar the world over heheh
#not4profitlife
-
1 & 2. Sure.
3 - Well Hyper-v and Xen-server are free.
4 - Is an all your eggs in one basket model. Which can be risky too.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
1 & 2. Sure.
3 - Well Hyper-v and Xen-server are free.
4 - Is an all your eggs in one basket model. Which can be risky too.
4... Backup, backup, backup!
-
@dafyre said
4... Backup, backup, backup!
Backups funnily enough don't work for.
- Hardware availability. Can I get a replacement node? If so how quickly.
- If the software part of the hyper-visor all in one magic box breaks and I lose all 3 nodes, what then.
- Scale takes away a lot of the tech from the technician to make it easier which is good but when that tech fails, what can you do.
Now, I like the Scale model but it's still a magic box in the corner.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@dafyre said
4... Backup, backup, backup!
Backups funnily enough don't work for.
- Hardware availability. Can I get a replacement node? If so how quickly.
- If the software part of the hyper-visor all in one magic box breaks and I lose all 3 nodes, what then.
- Scale takes away a lot of the tech from the technician to make it easier which is good but when that tech fails, what can you do.
Now, I like the Scale model but it's still a magic box in the corner.
Yeah, that is a perfectly valid point... and I think that is why their starter kits are more than one node, lol.
-
@dafyre said
Yeah, that is a perfectly valid point... and I think that is why their starter kits are more than one node, lol.
Yes, but even if I buy 500 nodes, the software is the single point of failure.
Look at Microsoft Azure.
They've not had hardware problems, Not lost data centres, their issues have been software based.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@dafyre said
Yeah, that is a perfectly valid point... and I think that is why their starter kits are more than one node, lol.
Yes, but even if I buy 500 nodes, the software is the single point of failure.
Look at Microsoft Azure.
They've not had hardware problems, Not lost data centres, their issues have been software based.
But you could still run into that with VMware, or Xen, or Hyper-V, or KVM, or any piece of software. I'm glad to say, I've never seen an issue with the Scale systems take out more than one node (and that was a hardware failure).
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@dafyre said
4... Backup, backup, backup!
Backups funnily enough don't work for.
- Hardware availability. Can I get a replacement node? If so how quickly.
- If the software part of the hyper-visor all in one magic box breaks and I lose all 3 nodes, what then.
- Scale takes away a lot of the tech from the technician to make it easier which is good but when that tech fails, what can you do.
Now, I like the Scale model but it's still a magic box in the corner.
It's not, really. Because it runs on KVM you can always take a backup and restore to any hardware with KVM without doing a P2V and you can always to a P2V to disparate hardware. So there isn't any lock in.
The "software point of failure" is common to all clustered solutions. The same applies to XenServer, Hyper-V and ESXi - if you cluster them, they become a single computer. It's the Catch-22 of HA solutions.... by removing all of the single points of failure, you create a new one. But the hope is that the new one is dramatically less likely to fail than the ones that it replaced; and generally that is true.
-
@dafyre said
But you could still run into that with VMware, or Xen, or Hyper-V, or KVM, or any piece of software.
Yes but there is a world of difference between those 3 and Scale in sheer volume of installs alone.
How many Scale competent guys can I get versus someone who works in any of the above?
-
@dafyre said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@dafyre said
Yeah, that is a perfectly valid point... and I think that is why their starter kits are more than one node, lol.
Yes, but even if I buy 500 nodes, the software is the single point of failure.
Look at Microsoft Azure.
They've not had hardware problems, Not lost data centres, their issues have been software based.
But you could still run into that with VMware, or Xen, or Hyper-V, or KVM, or any piece of software. I'm glad to say, I've never seen an issue with the Scale systems take out more than one node (and that was a hardware failure).
They do an extreme amount of testing. Unlike most solutions that only test compatibility, they test the full stack of hardware configurations, software versions, and even firmware in every permutation so you know that you matter what you are running, it's a tested configuration.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@dafyre said
But you could still run into that with VMware, or Xen, or Hyper-V, or KVM, or any piece of software.
Yes but there is a world of difference between those 3 and Scale in sheer volume of installs alone.
Is that really a factor, though? Scale only has a couple configurations to test, each of those literally have millions of configurations that they don't test. So when thinking of the scale for testing, Scale actually has the advantage.
-
@scottalanmiller said
It's not, really. Because it runs on KVM you can always take a backup and restore to any hardware with KVM without doing a P2V and you can always to a P2V to disparate hardware. So there isn't any lock in.
Ok, but the Scale model says you don't need to know how to do that. It's entire selling point is simplicity and ease of use.
-
@scottalanmiller said
Yes but there is a world of difference between those 3 and Scale in sheer volume of installs alone.
Is that really a factor, though?
Yes
@Breffni-Potter said
How many Scale competent guys can I get versus someone who works in any of the above?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@scottalanmiller said
It's not, really. Because it runs on KVM you can always take a backup and restore to any hardware with KVM without doing a P2V and you can always to a P2V to disparate hardware. So there isn't any lock in.
Ok, but the Scale model says you don't need to know how to do that. It's entire selling point is simplicity and ease of use.
Okay, so basically you are saying that there is no way to make you happy. If they offload the work, you are concerned about being dependent on them but if there is a simple way to not be dependent, you are worried that you need to know what you are doing. You can't have it both ways.
You get a system that really doesn't require you to know those things and there isn't a significant risk of needing to do so. If things fail so badly that you need a mitigation strategy you can just hire a consultant to help, it's trivial and standard work.
The issue here is that the OTHER products you would move to if you don't want to be locked in require more knowledge than using Scale does. So the base of your issue here, I think, is that if you choose to leave Scale, you will lose the benefits of the Scale. That's not really a problem with the Scale but a problem with everything that isn't Scale, right?
-
@Breffni-Potter said in The Four Things That You Lose with Scale Computing HC3:
@scottalanmiller said
Yes but there is a world of difference between those 3 and Scale in sheer volume of installs alone.
Is that really a factor, though?
Yes
@Breffni-Potter said
How many Scale competent guys can I get versus someone who works in any of the above?
How is it a factor? The Scale has a bigger scale of testing. So if it IS a factor, Scale wins, right?
How many Scale guys do you need? Even people who have never used one are competent on it. You can't find competent Vmware people to save your life, just look at SW and the kind of people that companies are hiring for that. They can't find people who even know the basics in most cases.
That there are a "lot of people selling services" is not a pro for a platform, it's a negative.
-
@scottalanmiller said
Okay, so basically you are saying that there is no way to make you happy.
Nope, simply clarify what they say:
@scale said
4. Support Engineers
You’ve spent many hours developing close relationships with a circle of support engineers from your various server, storage, and hypervisor vendors over months and years but those relationships simply can’t continue.
So their suggestion is, their big pitch is, you never need a consultant again, we'll do it all.
-
@scottalanmiller said
You can't find competent Vmware people to save your life, just look at SW and the kind of people that companies are hiring for that.
There are more IT pros than on Spiceworks so not the best example and I wouldn't generalize people by the products they use.
Not that I'm a fan of VMware...But that's a separate thing.
