Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
-
Used a vendor salesman as a consultant, CIO is not technical and hiding behind the sales guy to make it look like he's doing his job...
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Only one UPS feeding a SAN? Yes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Used a vendor salesman as a consultant, CIO is not technical and hiding behind the sales guy to make it look like he's doing his job...
And deleted his post...
-
@brianlittlejohn said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Used a vendor salesman as a consultant, CIO is not technical and hiding behind the sales guy to make it look like he's doing his job...
And deleted his post...
Most of how bad it is was quoted further down, though. He didn't hide anything, he just made himself stand out as not thinking through what he was asking.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Seven servers and one SAN on one UPS? Instead of a single point of failure SAN, seven stand alone servers, no shared storage with two UPS would have provided a lot more protection
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Only one UPS feeding a SAN? Yes.
This assumes the SAN had multiple power cables.
But he was a complete fool destroying his backups TO make a change like this.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Seven servers and one SAN on one UPS? Instead of a single point of failure SAN, seven stand alone servers, no shared storage with two UPS would have provided a lot more protection
Lol of course
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Only one UPS feeding a SAN? Yes.
This assumes the SAN had multiple power cables.
No, it's assuming that any SAN that was acceptable to have used would have multiple power cables and supplies. I'm not assuming that he had a good SAN. I'm assuming that doing what he did was wrong, regardless of how he got there.
-
Take the day off and the posting is just terrible now that I am trying to catch up:
Looking to double cluster, Synology SAN based IPOD.
-
IPOD on a single Synology...
-
Installed Hyper-V as a role, and did an old version of it.
-
And trying to run Fedora 7 as a guess. Fedora 7 is 18 versions old, almost 19, and hails from 2008.
-
Did years of research, but appears to have ONLY talked to sales people that entire time, never spoke to anyone that was a consultant and does not appear to have ever posted a question anywhere in a forum or anything and so the sales people led him vastly astray, he asked questions that made no sense which didn't help, and ended up violating the first rule of VoIP because he violated the first rule of IT (don't get advice from salesmen.) Now he's locked into a horrific contract, paying drastically too much, doesn't have basic flexibility, and can't afford to replace his phones with VoIP so his other costly decisions now leave him needed special hardware to get him through till more money is available. All of this after a decade of using an insanely overprice phone service that hasn't made sense in a long time (cascade of bad decisions.)
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2015892-transition-planning
He's trying, but seems like he wants the answers just handed to him. No IT research going on. I'm guessing that they will lose $7,000 give or take a few, in five years on a project that should have cost almost nothing.
-
Looks like he is not actually locked in yet. Might be able to save him.
-
No, you went all south on that thread.
-
@jaredbusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
No, you went all south on that thread.
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Is it just to document how people are shooting themselves in the foot for some kind of exercise later where you can point to the collated material and say, "look, here, these are all cases of fake IT pros, or salespeople, failing to work in the best interests of [company]. They have all built an inverted pyramid of doom and are paying the price."
900+ pages of people who are wrong on the Internet? Is it needed?
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png -
@grey said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@jaredbusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
No, you went all south on that thread.
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Is it just to document how people are shooting themselves in the foot for some kind of exercise later where you can point to the collated material and say, "look, here, these are all cases of fake IT pros, or salespeople, failing to work in the best interests of [company]. They have all built an inverted pyramid of doom and are paying the price."
900+ pages of people who are wrong on the Internet? Is it needed?
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.pngYes, it is a thread of documentation so that when people (and they do this) say that best practices aren't really best practices or that people never really get hurt for not doing them, we have it documented. Because on SW, this was a regular excuse given for not doing things that someone knew better than not to do.
-
@grey said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@jaredbusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
No, you went all south on that thread.
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Is it just to document how people are shooting themselves in the foot for some kind of exercise later where you can point to the collated material and say, "look, here, these are all cases of fake IT pros, or salespeople, failing to work in the best interests of [company]. They have all built an inverted pyramid of doom and are paying the price."
900+ pages of people who are wrong on the Internet?
Pretty much.
Is it needed?
What, you don't like making fun of people?
Really the main benefit to this thread in my eyes is that new comers can just browse a few of these pages and see many examples of how doing the wrong thing really costs these people and their businesses.
The fact that this page keeps growing so fast just shows how much of an epidemic it really is.
-
@dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@grey said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@jaredbusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
No, you went all south on that thread.
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Is it just to document how people are shooting themselves in the foot for some kind of exercise later where you can point to the collated material and say, "look, here, these are all cases of fake IT pros, or salespeople, failing to work in the best interests of [company]. They have all built an inverted pyramid of doom and are paying the price."
900+ pages of people who are wrong on the Internet?
Pretty much.
Is it needed?
What, you don't like making fun of people?
Really the main benefit to this thread in my eyes is that new comers can just browse a few of these pages and see many examples of how doing the wrong thing really costs these people and their businesses.
The fact that this page keeps growing so fast just shows how much of an epidemic it really is.
I understand that it is a fine line, when does documenting why things are best practices become a problem. But let's think about it another way. How often do people use the lack of threads like this as "proof" that SANs don't fail or that IPODs aren't costly or that patches aren't needed. People use the lack of anecdotal evidence as "proof" that statistics and logic aren't real. This thread is a testament to the fact that things we've learned to be bad patterns are really bad patterns and that best practices exist for a reason and that in the real world, skipping them will burn you over and over again, often in ways you might not have predicted.
