Question about AWS
-
Now if he really want to do things in a sensible way... he should be looking at modernizing. Basically he is many years behind and looking to not even try to modernize. He says he wants to "future proof", but his ideas are bad ones from twelve years ago. "Future proofing" is the opposite of what it is, it's not even a current design.
He's using Windows which makes no sense here and hasn't for like a decade. He's trying to use cloud in the "we just heard about cloud and got it totally wrong" way. He's using AD and SMB where they are the worst possible tools. He's looking to build out a VPN infrastructure a decade after we started abandoning that design (for the most part.)
There are loads of modern things that we could do to probably really improve stuff here. But it would all be polar opposite to what is here. Like.. .what purpose is AD serving (dont' say security, that's not something it does) when you don't need shared computing? Why not modern storage (like NExtCloud?)
Basically any modern network would naturally address the kinds of problems that you are having. But his design seems purpose built to make everything fail.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I do think that email server like Zimbra will be working great there though.
Works great here for sure
Check out Mailcow, too. -
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.
Now that is a workload that can be great for cloud under the right circumstances. But if you already have an on premises situation, then it won't likely make sense and will be better to be on premises.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.Now that is a workload that can be great for cloud under the right circumstances. But if you already have an on premises situation, then it won't likely make sense and will be better to be on premises.
Okay, got that. You've got a point in this (and all of the above
) . -
The problem with separating workloads, like having AD and storage on premises and LAMP apps on cloud, is that it would be "free" to run the LAMP stack on the on premises server since you already have it. So even though it might be cheap on AWS, it's still not "cheap" overall. And more for you to manage.
-
From your description, my guess is that very simple virtualization is what you need. KVM is where I would start. Free and enterprise. All of the features included. Keep it simple, and standard.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
From your description, my guess is that very simple virtualization is what you need. KVM is where I would start. Free and enterprise. All of the features included. Keep it simple, and standard.
I think so too. My first recommendation then was XenServer and even Hyper-V but my Director wanted VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
I was loving XenServer until I tried Proxmox :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_smiling_eyes:
-
I believe it is based-off KVM.
-
Though I haven't tried XCP-ng
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I was loving XenServer until I tried Proxmox
We generally avoid ProxMox because the vendor isn't very good. It is just extra features bolted onto KVM and LXC. A pretty weird idea. It mostly works, and lots of people like it. But I would never trust that vendor in my business. They have a bad track record from
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
Though I haven't tried XCP-ng
XCP-NG is good, that would be the only logical way to approach Xen in this scenario.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
and it made the project to a crawl.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
and it made the project to a crawl.
Ha. We always find the biggest problems with it are around license management. It takes so much unnecessary work when you are just trying to do basic tasks. And the simplest things like adding another server to the company can totally break all of the plans.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I was loving XenServer until I tried Proxmox
We generally avoid ProxMox because the vendor isn't very good. It is just extra features bolted onto KVM and LXC. A pretty weird idea. It mostly works, and lots of people like it. But I would never trust that vendor in my business. They have a bad track record from
I'll have to check on that forum. I'll be checking XCP-ng and KVM this time around.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I was loving XenServer until I tried Proxmox
We generally avoid ProxMox because the vendor isn't very good. It is just extra features bolted onto KVM and LXC. A pretty weird idea. It mostly works, and lots of people like it. But I would never trust that vendor in my business. They have a bad track record from
I'll have to check on that forum. I'll be checking XCP-ng and KVM this time around.
No need to check, every time someone talks about them they have hired trolls who pop on to promote the product.
is filled with fake reviews by people who created one time accounts to spam reviews of ProxMox. They got caught over and over again, but just kept doing it. You can't trust anything good you've ever heard about it, because they generate fake reviews everywhere, and if you mention it, their staff will create accounts and attack you. -
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
and it made the project to a crawl.
Ha. We always find the biggest problems with it are around license management. It takes so much unnecessary work when you are just trying to do basic tasks. And the simplest things like adding another server to the company can totally break all of the plans.
I second this. I was just trying to get a basic VM with ability to transfer VMs to another server should there be something wrong in the host...HCI was proposed.
It was good, so is the pricetag.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I'll be checking XCP-ng and KVM this time around.
Those are likely the best choices. KVM is really what makes the most sense now. It is what everyone is using, it is where all of the focus is. I was the strongest proponent of Xen for a really long time, and I still love it. But KVM is just the more sensible option. So much easier to get support and tools.
Get Fedora, install KVM, use Cockpit, oVirt or any number of options. Easy peasy.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
and it made the project to a crawl.
Ha. We always find the biggest problems with it are around license management. It takes so much unnecessary work when you are just trying to do basic tasks. And the simplest things like adding another server to the company can totally break all of the plans.
I second this. I was just trying to get a basic VM with ability to transfer VMs to another server should there be something wrong in the host...HCI was proposed.
It was good, so is the pricetag.
HCI is not for transferring. Who proposed that?
HC on Vmware is absurdly expensive. But it is free on KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I'll be checking XCP-ng and KVM this time around.
Those are likely the best choices. KVM is really what makes the most sense now. It is what everyone is using, it is where all of the focus is. I was the strongest proponent of Xen for a really long time, and I still love it. But KVM is just the more sensible option. So much easier to get support and tools.
Get Fedora, install KVM, use Cockpit, oVirt or any number of options. Easy peasy.
Thanks, I'll do that.
