Xen Server 6.5 + Xen Orchestra w. HA & SAN
-
Server planning for five years out is relatively risky. Not bad, but we know just about nothing about the future. And "the company wants to grow" should not lead us to spending today. A 200 person company buying hardware like they are a 500 person company is the hallmark of a company that is never going to get to 500. Projections like that are not things that IT acts on, that would lead to some dangerous stuff.
-
Ok, why dont you come consult for us then? Explain why HA is not needed and list the negatives and upside.
I dont get why your so anti-HA?
So we get another single server, spec'd full of drives and hope that we dont have a hardware failure
What are chances of mobo dying on Dell R730? or integrated NIC card failing, etc? I suppose low percentage rate.
-
CEO/CFO & management, will not purchase new hardware unless they're certain it'll last for 5+ years and handle the load of 500+ employee's by year 2020. All by company projections and their hiring needs/growth rate statistics.
-
@ntoxicator said:
I dont get why your so anti-HA?
I "pro-good business decisions", if that sounds anti-HA, it is self explanatory.
-
@ntoxicator said:
Ok, why dont you come consult for us then? Explain why HA is not needed and list the negatives and upside.
That's what I do for a living, I help CEOs and CFOs understand how finances play into IT and help steer companies away from exactly these kinds of problems. I specifically am the person who does this, that's my focus.
-
For HA, two nodes.
It comes down to understanding the hardware and the MTBF? Understanding the common failures of said server/generation/caveats?
Understanding risk or percentage change as to an actual hardware failure which would result in a node going down, and the need for fail-over scenerio
I see those as logical talking points and reasoning when looking at HA and if its a need or not
-
@ntoxicator said:
So we get another single server, spec'd full of drives and hope that we dont have a hardware failure
Well, that is WAY better than where you are today, right? It would...
- Save you a ton of money.
- Improve your reliability by a full order of magnitude.
- Be far easier to maintain.
- Not waste money that might be needed for growth.
- Allow you to get a decent support contract.
- Be easily able to be handed off to an MSP or your replacement someday.
- Not require that your shop develop and maintain indefinitely more skills than it otherwise needs.
-
@ntoxicator said:
What are chances of mobo dying on Dell R730? or integrated NIC card failing, etc? I suppose low percentage rate.
Around five nines of reliability. On average these fail about once every 15 years. How much money are you willing to spend today to avoid a disaster that has almost no chance of happening during the life of your server?
-
@ntoxicator said:
CEO/CFO & management, will not purchase new hardware unless they're certain it'll last for 5+ years and handle the load of 500+ employee's by year 2020. All by company projections and their hiring needs/growth rate statistics.
Then they are idiots. Sorry, that's as honest as I can be. For IT to say that is fine, IT people aren't financially trained. For a CEO and CFO to state something so financially juvenile and reckless means that you should be worried about their ability to run the company. I'm very serious. That's like high school level business mistake there. Even a college kid just taking early business classes should know far better than to think of ANY financial investment in terms other than "what is best for the business." They are getting emotional and emotional C levels drive companies in the ground.
-
Oh talk to me about emotional responses..
It would be worth its own topic.
-
@ntoxicator said:
For HA, two nodes.
It comes down to understanding the hardware and the MTBF? Understanding the common failures of said server/generation/caveats?
Understanding risk or percentage change as to an actual hardware failure which would result in a node going down, and the need for fail-over scenerio
I see those as logical talking points and reasoning when looking at HA and if its a need or not
Not really. Those are background noise.
All HA discussions, all... no exceptions, come down to two factors and two factors alone...
- How much money is lost from different downtime events.
- How much money can be spent to mitigate those events to what level.
That's it. That's the whole thing. You are currently skipping the first step entirely. Your CFO, even if it is his first day working in any business, should be all over that. Even a business intern from college should be all over the fact that the "risk" isn't being considered at all. Risk is measured in dollars and no one has thrown out a figure yet. So the very first thing you need to have this discussion... in fact the only thing that should trigger this discussion... is missing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ntoxicator said:
CEO/CFO & management, will not purchase new hardware unless they're certain it'll last for 5+ years and handle the load of 500+ employee's by year 2020. All by company projections and their hiring needs/growth rate statistics.
better than to think of ANY financial investment in terms other than "what is best for the business." They are getting emotional and emotional C levels drive companies in the ground.
I think you made a point here and the comment around "What is best for the business". They're trying to also operate on a cash basis... also building out a new 70,000 - 112,000 sq ft. facility to house all new employee's. to be built by end of 2017. I personally doubt their timeframe. I have my doubts
I've tried to explain my case and even a new single server approach (updated hardware & specs) to hold our VM resource needs... always gets brushed off. Happening for past year.
However, have recently asked I find pricing/quotes for equipment and see what other companies of 'our size' are doing and have success with.
-
I'm not saying that HA is wrong for you, I've never said that once. What I've said is that nothing you've said has supported the idea that HA is what you need but a lot of what you have said and more that you are stating suggest that you do not.
If there is a reason for HA, it's not been mentioned yet.
-
@ntoxicator said:
I think you made a point here and the comment around "What is best for the business".
Which would never involve "we have to spend today for five years in the future." It would always be "we need to buy today what is best for the business." Forcing a five year investment in technology is not how you keep "what is best" in mind and goes against basic good practices.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2012/10/you-arent-gonna-need-it/
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm not saying that HA is wrong for you, I've never said that once. What I've said is that nothing you've said has supported the idea that HA is what you need but a lot of what you have said and more that you are stating suggest that you do not.
If there is a reason for HA, it's not been mentioned yet.
Understood
I have an email and documentation to CEO/CFO & management team. Asking them what downtime is worth to them, or the cost of downtime? To the cost of having infrastructure to mitigate that. Also asked about their expectations, as well as ROI and TCO
-
@ntoxicator said:
They're trying to also operate on a cash basis... also building out a new 70,000 - 112,000 sq ft. facility to house all new employee's. to be built by end of 2017.
And even while doing so they feel the need to overspend today in the hopes of it being useful tomorrow? If they are doing big growth projects, it seems like being bold on unnecessary spending early would not make sense. Especially as growing later or adding HA later would be cheaper that doing so today. So the investment today is just setting money on fire unless it is needed right away.
-
@ntoxicator said:
I've tried to explain my case and even a new single server approach (updated hardware & specs) to hold our VM resource needs... always gets brushed off. Happening for past year.
Do you feel that that would be the actions of a company that needs HA?
Step back and look at this from the outside it.... without knowing that someone is demanding HA, everything suggests the opposite. Business leaders being callous with spending, treating IT a bit as an afterthought, running for years with overspending and under producing... would that lead to a left field jump to HA? IT might, but not likely.
-
@ntoxicator said:
However, have recently asked I find pricing/quotes for equipment and see what other companies of 'our size' are doing and have success with.
Also bad signs. Not that getting an idea of what companies "your size" are doing is necessarily bad. But two really critical things...
- Every company is unique and if they weren't then they have no value.
- Most companies run IT horribly and you want to avoid what most do.
If you look at SW, we've been showing "average companies your size" what a bad idea HA is for them for years. I've literally had something like only 1-2% come back with the numbers and turn out that HA actually was for them. 98% are just running their businesses poorly.
-
I greatly appreciate your brutal honesty in your replies. I suppose, i took an emotional response as jabs at me. But your outside view plays a key role in your driven responses.
-
@ntoxicator said:
I have an email and documentation to CEO/CFO & management team. Asking them what downtime is worth to them, or the cost of downtime? To the cost of having infrastructure to mitigate that.
Make them put it into calculation numbers. Meaning....
$5/minute or $10,000/hour.
It should be complex in 99% of cases, not just what I said about. It might be like this...
Timeline:
0-10 minutes: $0
10 minutes - 2 hours: $50,000
Then $12,000/hr
Until 48 hours, then $5K/hr
At one week it shoots to $500K and we are likely out of business
