When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Using the tools I have to use. I cant change that, I can only make it as good as it can be.
I totally understand this part. You are forced to support IT decisions made by others. I'm not disputing that in any way, nor blaming you for it. Just pointing out that from a larger perspective, this isn't a good IT situation. It's one mistake justifying another mistake in a tower. Example...
Someone chooses that employees are more important to be seen than to be working -> Costly management is needed to deal with architecture decisions -> Expensive failover systems are needed to address management inefficiencies and bad prioritization
Other than what a few have said on here, my experience is that SMBs in the UK do want bums on seats. Yep, imo a bad decision, but out of my control. Sadly, I cannot change that. But, I can do what I can to make it easier for IT than harder. We already have the systems and licenses, so its no more expensive than doing it another way at this point. We also need HA, not just for this, but because its a business decision from the board on the level of service they want to provide. So...
The board get what they want with HA and don't have to spend more than they have thus far been happy to spend. IT, with that same HA, are able to do what they want during the day without causing any unavailability to customers... and the board are happy as its what they wanted, yes, although at a slightly higher cost.
Everybody happy.
The systems in use are not insanely costly compared to free.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Other than what a few have said on here, my experience is that SMBs in the UK do want bums on seats.
SMBs everywhere are normally SMBs and not larger because they run their businesses poorly. It's what keeps them SMBs. SMBs that run things well stop being SMBs as they grow. That keeping buns on seats is more important than profits is indicative of a lack of core values in the company, which we see in other expected ways like large technical debt. It means that likely there aren't proper cost analysis processes.
That most SMBs do anything should be a reason to know something is likely wrong with that process.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
We also need HA, not just for this, but because its a business decision from the board on the level of service they want to provide. So...
So it is REALLY important to then realize that the board is running IT. They are not a true board, but actually hands on techs at that point. They are the acting IT department. Nothing particularly wrong with that, but really weird for decisions like that to be taken on by a board.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Everybody happy.
This is like the sales thread. Yup, the people responsible for making profits decided to be happy rather than to represent the interests of the business. Likely VARs or the devs wanted something and "sold" it to management who now "feel happy" because they haven't done the math to determine to what degree they were manipulated. That's exactly what we see in the sales process. Is that what happened here? Impossible to say, but almost certainly. Why else would they feel happy losing money? Why Do they feel happy losing money? Doesn't that sound crazy?
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I agree with you, ^ cost = not working well - but if the company is happy with the price then it is working well.
No, that just reflects bad management - WHY would they be happy with losing money? Management has a job to make money, right? Logically losing it without benefit should make them unhappy. If they are happy doing a bad job....
I guess, but.. it is a decision. Could spend less. Could spend more. Perhaps board are willing to pay that more for various reasons. Doesn't make it a bad decision. Just makes it their decision, and if they are happy with the cost then its not bad. Its just more cost, which they accept.
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
The board get what they want with HA ....
Which is not profits. That's the crazy bit. What's the board's job if not to try to make money?
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I guess, but.. it is a decision. Could spend less. Could spend more. Perhaps board are willing to pay that more for various reasons. Doesn't make it a bad decision.
Actually, that defines it as a bad decision. The ROI is the sole criteria for what would be a good decision.
-
It is THEIR decision to make. But if this was a public company in the US and they actually did things as you describe, investors would have legal recourse because it's not just a bad decision, it's one made in such a described way as to have violated the trust of the investors.
I understand that we don't know who made the decision, when or why, so I can't say that this IS what happened here. But your description of them being happy losing money and that profits are not their goals and that they feel that good decisions don't mean doing what is best for the business are all violations of trust under US law. So not just bad, but unethical in that context.
-
Normally boards appoint executives, not get involved in the under the hood workings of a single department. That part is really weird.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
Personal preferences are a different thing to business. #reasons aren't things that can be considered by a public business or by someone paid to represent the interests of a business.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It is THEIR decision to make. But if this was a public company in the US and they actually did things as you describe, investors would have legal recourse because it's not just a bad decision, it's one made in such a described way as to have violated the trust of the investors.
I understand that we don't know who made the decision, when or why, so I can't say that this IS what happened here. But your description of them being happy losing money and that profits are not their goals and that they feel that good decisions don't mean doing what is best for the business are all violations of trust under US law. So not just bad, but unethical in that context.
They are getting the profit they want at the cost they want... its hitting their target and SQL Server was I guess still able to put them in their target. They are happy and its what they wanted.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It is THEIR decision to make. But if this was a public company in the US and they actually did things as you describe, investors would have legal recourse because it's not just a bad decision, it's one made in such a described way as to have violated the trust of the investors.
I understand that we don't know who made the decision, when or why, so I can't say that this IS what happened here. But your description of them being happy losing money and that profits are not their goals and that they feel that good decisions don't mean doing what is best for the business are all violations of trust under US law. So not just bad, but unethical in that context.
They are getting the profit they want at the cost they want... its hitting their target and SQL Server was I guess still able to put them in their target. They are happy and its what they wanted.
Right... you honestly believe that they want to CAP their profits? I'm serious, you actually believe that if you asked them, just casually over drinks, if they really don't want more profits and are intentionally limiting it that they would agree that their goal is limited profits, not to earn as much as possible?
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
Personal preferences are a different thing to business. #reasons aren't things that can be considered by a public business or by someone paid to represent the interests of a business.
The preference of the devs was SQL server. The preference of the company is to keep the devs happy, and for whatever that price was, they get hard working happy devs. Yes, they could have equally got rid of them for other devs who want to use cheaper devs, but perhaps they don't just want to fire a team of people over a small cost increase when they are well above hitting their yearly financial targets. Not everywhere is cutthroat.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
It is THEIR decision to make. But if this was a public company in the US and they actually did things as you describe, investors would have legal recourse because it's not just a bad decision, it's one made in such a described way as to have violated the trust of the investors.
I understand that we don't know who made the decision, when or why, so I can't say that this IS what happened here. But your description of them being happy losing money and that profits are not their goals and that they feel that good decisions don't mean doing what is best for the business are all violations of trust under US law. So not just bad, but unethical in that context.
They are getting the profit they want at the cost they want... its hitting their target and SQL Server was I guess still able to put them in their target. They are happy and its what they wanted.
Right... you honestly believe that they want to CAP their profits? I'm serious, you actually believe that if you asked them, just casually over drinks, if they really don't want more profits and are intentionally limiting it that they would agree that their goal is limited profits, not to earn as much as possible?
Yeah, I can see this. I'm not saying if the company are right or wrong, I'm just saying I don't know, and it may be more than reasonable the reason. Its an unknown.
The fact is, were doing what the company wants, and are highly available without VMWare... what I was trying to say originally
lol -
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
Personal preferences are a different thing to business. #reasons aren't things that can be considered by a public business or by someone paid to represent the interests of a business.
The preference of the devs was SQL server. The preference of the company is to keep the devs happy, and for whatever that price was, they get hard working happy devs. Yes, they could have equally got rid of them for other devs who want to use cheaper devs, but perhaps they don't just want to fire a team of people over a small cost increase when they are well above hitting their yearly financial targets. Not everywhere is cutthroat.
It's not about being cutthroat, that's what the devs were being. Any competent dev wouldn't care at all, as long as it was the right tech for the business. That they devs were not working towards the interests of the business seems like a really weird reason to placate them, right?
It's not about the HUGE cost that came with it, it's about the even bigger problems that it hides. Like support issues, cost of development, and so forth. Sure, this one cost might be close to $100,000 lost alone and maybe the owners really hate profits. But it's also slower development, harder to attract good talent in the future, devs that make a culture of not acting as part of the "team" and so forth.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
The fact is, were doing what the company wants, and are highly available without VMWare... what I was trying to say originally
lolI understand, and I'm just reading that back as " the company doesn't care about profits." Is that really the goal of the company, HA above profits?
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
I need to get from A to B by car. I could get a low cost car, or a high cost car. If I'm happy to get the high cost car because its what my kids want... then fine. They are happy, i'm happy, just spending a little more to get from A to B. We've got where we need to be, with a bit more cost - acceptable cost because of #reasons. That's fine.
Personal preferences are a different thing to business. #reasons aren't things that can be considered by a public business or by someone paid to represent the interests of a business.
The preference of the devs was SQL server. The preference of the company is to keep the devs happy, and for whatever that price was, they get hard working happy devs. Yes, they could have equally got rid of them for other devs who want to use cheaper devs, but perhaps they don't just want to fire a team of people over a small cost increase when they are well above hitting their yearly financial targets. Not everywhere is cutthroat.
It's not about being cutthroat, that's what the devs were being. Any competent dev wouldn't care at all, as long as it was the right tech for the business. That they devs were not working towards the interests of the business seems like a really weird reason to placate them, right?
It's not about the HUGE cost that came with it, it's about the even bigger problems that it hides. Like support issues, cost of development, and so forth. Sure, this one cost might be close to $100,000 lost alone and maybe the owners really hate profits. But it's also slower development, harder to attract good talent in the future, devs that make a culture of not acting as part of the "team" and so forth.
Perhaps back when they started the developers they had were most competent with SQL Server. Its what they had experience with. Use what you know right? What if the time to hit the market was then, and any delay would stop you being first and capturing the market... you get them SQL Server. Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Perhaps back when they started the developers they had were most competent with SQL Server. Its what they had experience with. Use what you know right?
That's my point, no. For lots of reasons...
- It's just not good business, using what you know instead of what is right for the business.
- Devs don't need to "know" anything about the database, that's for IT to know. They just write the queries and even that isn't common. It's abstracted from them.
- If learning a database from either perspective takes ANY effort, you have a major development problem that is going to spiral into all kinds of problems.
- Same for languages, the slightest level of development competency means that databases and languages are not barriers, ever.
- If you use what you know, this means that someone must have hired them based on that and was the ACTUAL decision maker, why did they hire people who can only do one thing and not a thing appropriate to the need?
This is something I've dealt with for a long time. Sure, things in the murky past present a lot of ambiguity to say "well maybe it" but let's be realistic. In the real world, there is no actual situation that is going to have realistically happened to justify this, especially given other things we know (profits not prioritized, butts in seats, etc.) that suggest a long term problematic way of thinking.
-
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
This is decent logic and in a vacuum makes total sense. In a programming one, though, it does not. This is actually the reason that you'd fire them immediately because it suggests that they are super slow programmers that are not going to be able to execute quickly. For exactly the reason of fearing delays is why you would not follow this path.
-
@scottalanmiller said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
@Jimmy9008 said in When to use VMWare over free hypervisors?:
Delay if training them in something else, or delay to fire them and recruit people with experience in less expensive solutions... what if that made them miss their window to be first and capture the market... no ongoing business at all. You missed your chance. That 100k lost from that decision could have protected 50million for all I know.
This is decent logic and in a vacuum makes total sense. In a programming one, though, it does not. This is actually the reason that you'd fire them immediately because it suggests that they are super slow programmers that are not going to be able to execute quickly. For exactly the reason of fearing delays is why you would not follow this path.
I will never know the reasons. Any discussions can only be guesses here.
All I know for sure here is that i'm happy with HA that has been accomplished within my remit, all without the cost of VMWare.
