Domain Controller Down (VM)
-
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
But damn.. He definitely needs to replace that 100 Mb switch he has at the core of the network.
This is probably the first thing he should do. Falls way below the home line and would be an inexpensive upgrade to gigabit.
Well, that depends - I don't consider $3500 inexpensive when looking at the VMWare recommended Brocade switch. If he dumps the SAN he might be able to go with something less expensive and be in a good supported/recommended setup.
Was his SAN doing Fibrechannel or iSCSI?
Has to be iSCSI because only iSCSI can do 100Mb/s. FC never could go that slowly.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
An IPOD is an architectural system design. Where you have 1 storage node (usually a SAN) and
twomultiple servers.It's two or more. Lots of people use three or hundreds. IPODs actually make more sense the more top heavy that they get, because even though their risk goes through the roof, they start to exhibit cost savings. So it is a trade off. At small scale, they are both more risky AND more costly, which is why the SMB normally avoids them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@coliver said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
But damn.. He definitely needs to replace that 100 Mb switch he has at the core of the network.
This is probably the first thing he should do. Falls way below the home line and would be an inexpensive upgrade to gigabit.
Woot, more people mentioning the home line!
Not just below the home line... more than a decade ago it was below it!
I still have a hard time giving this to you Scott - a decade ago Best Buy wasn't selling home routers with Gb switches in them, at least not at prices normal people would be buying.
I'm not talking about IT people and what they do at home - I'm talking consumers. -
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
That is not your decision, get over your ego. You are IT. You are supposed to work the solution for the business needs. If the business has decided that they need software ABC and that the required manufacturer support for it, then yes, you spec and buy what ever support infrastructure is required.
This is not your decision. It is the businesses decision.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
Sure, the best solution would be to dump that vendor and find one that offers a solution that works in VM, but again, not always an option - and if support is tantamount, then you build what you are told for that product.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
But why buy from a vendor that doesn't support good architectural design? I know that there are cases where there is no choice, but I don't believe that they are actually common.
What if your car company said that you couldn't use the seatbelt in their cars? Would you still buy from them or get a car that takes safety seriously?
If the vendor doesn't properly support deploying their software, that's at least a huge mark against them. Is it 100% always a "no way with this vendor?" Maybe not, but it should be close. It suggests a series of bad things, like a vendor trying to get out of doing support, not knowing how IT works, lacking internal support resources... all things that if you want a support product should have you pretty wary of that vendor.
-
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
-
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Sure, the best solution would be to dump that vendor and find one that offers a solution that works in VM, but again, not always an option - and if support is tantamount, then you build what you are told for that product.
THat's where I will argue... if support is tantamount... that means that this vendor has a support problem that you need to worry about. It's specifically a support concern that would drive you away from a product with such a massive support problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
Dedicating hardware for a function is not archaic. We have a ton of it. It depends on what you're doing.
poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors
Name a reputable one that will be supported on any system.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
Yep, they are both - super cheap on spending resources to keep their software up to date with modern design, and the government not certifying new OSs/software for medical use.
Example, Toshiba was selling CT machines with Windows 2000 on it because either A) the government hadn't updated their certs with regards to new windows versions, or Toshiba hadn't spent the money getting their software/hardware certed on the newer software.
And like phone manufacturers, even though their equipment will be in the field for many many years, they don't bother to update the base OS at all.
-
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@JaredBusch said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
To summarize this in another fashion would be a vendor who says "We don't support virtualized environments at all"
You'd tell them to get lost if you had to run a Windows Server on dedicate hardware for an appliance.
No, you would build the box they wanted.
Why?
Because the entire point of the conversation is due to needing a supported system.
If you do not need a supported system, then install it where ever you want, however you want.
No the point of the entire thing is to have vendors who support a reasonable infrastructure. Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
That is not your decision, get over your ego. You are IT. You are supposed to work the solution for the business needs. If the business has decided that they need software ABC and that the required manufacturer support for it, then yes, you spec and buy what ever support infrastructure is required.
This is not your decision. It is the businesses decision.
This is true, it should be IT only providing the necessary info to the business... like that there is a massive concern that the vendor may not be able to support the product or might be less than production ready. If the business doesn't care, that's the business decision. From a business perspective, I'd almost always show a vendor like this the door immediately. Not even an option for them to present an argument for their lack of support. But some businesses are totally beholden to a single vendor or set of vendors and some businesses just don't care about the viability of good support and some just are below the home line (many, in the SMB.) All of those might choose products like this even though there is a support concern.
-
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
Dedicating hardware for a function is not archaic. We have a ton of it. It depends on what you're doing.
poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors
Name a reputable one that will be supported on any system.
It completely is archaic, what advantages do you get from dedicated hardware that aren't present with a virtual environment?!
Virtualizing provides you far more benefits than being physical, of which I shouldn't have to list!
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
Dedicating hardware for a function is not archaic. We have a ton of it. It depends on what you're doing.
poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors
Name a reputable one that will be supported on any system.
It completely is archaic, what advantages do you get from dedicated hardware that aren't present with a virtual environment?!
Virtualizing provides you far more benefits than being physical, of which I shouldn't have to list!
One benefit you get is support from this crappy vendor who doesn't support virtualized systems
-
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
Dedicating hardware for a function is not archaic. We have a ton of it. It depends on what you're doing.
poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors
Name a reputable one that will be supported on any system.
It completely is archaic, what advantages do you get from dedicated hardware that aren't present with a virtual environment?!
Virtualizing provides you far more benefits than being physical, of which I shouldn't have to list!
One benefit you get is support from this crappy vendor who doesn't support virtualized systems
Fair enough...
OK, that was my laugh for the day.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
what advantages do you get from dedicated hardware that aren't present with a virtual environment
Storage, compute nodes, RDMA, etc
-
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand...
Then your critical app vendor is below the home line. THAT'S how scary this should be to companies.
When your "business critical support" lacks the knowledge and skills of your first year help desk people, you need to be worried about their ability to support. Sure, when nothing goes wrong, everything is fine. But if anything goes wrong, you are suggesting these people don't have even the most rudimentary knowledge of systems today. That's worrisome. And it's why so many systems simply have no support options - relying on software and hardware that is out of support meaning that while the app might call itself supported, they depend on non-production systems making the whole thing out of support by extension.
-
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
what advantages do you get from dedicated hardware that aren't present with a virtual environment
Storage, compute nodes, RDMA, etc
I get all of those with virtual.
-
@Dashrender said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@scottalanmiller said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@stacksofplates said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
@DustinB3403 said in Domain Controller Down (VM):
Dedicating hardware to a single function is archaic.
No it's not.
The healthcare field has a handful of worthwhile usable applications, that only they know how to fix. If you're running on something using PV drivers that they don't understand, you're not going to get support, which you will probably need.
And... that's archaic. It's not that bad, incapable vendors don't require this. It's that that is archaic. Dedicated hardware is not the issue, but most healthcare software is downright embarassing and decades out of good practice and poorly supported or outright unsupported by the vendors.
Yep, they are both - super cheap on spending resources to keep their software up to date with modern design, and the government not certifying new OSs/software for medical use.
Example, Toshiba was selling CT machines with Windows 2000 on it because either A) the government hadn't updated their certs with regards to new windows versions, or Toshiba hadn't spent the money getting their software/hardware certed on the newer software.
And like phone manufacturers, even though their equipment will be in the field for many many years, they don't bother to update the base OS at all.
Right. It's archaic. Required and no way around it, but it doesn't make it not archaic and it also means that there is no supported option. Windows 2000 is out of support. So this takes the whole thing out of the supported world completely.
