The Textbook Things Gone Wrong in IT Thread
-
That's the only way it would work in this environment. We don't have any hosted applications such as an ERP, or Virtual PBX. So it would all get moved onto a larger unit.
Which consolidates the entire company to a single VM Host which has room to grow if need be.
The trouble IMO is the price on those SSD's they seem so expensive when compared to the cost of the Host.
-
And down the road (6 months maybe) purchase a second matching unit for HA which we really want.
-
@scottalanmiller What does he do in the case of an earthquaek (or a fire?) ... It takes out the whole compute & storage infrastructure... but what about his backups?
Edit: Ignore this comment, Dustin said what I was thinking.
-
@DustinB3403 If you use 2 x Hyper-V nodes + StarWind, or use XenServer, you can get the HA bits (shared / synchronized storage) thrown in for free without having to pay the VMware tax.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Which consolidates the entire company to a single VM Host which has room to grow if need be.
That's the standard model for SMBs. There should only be one host unless there is so much disaster recovery need based around hardware failure that a second host is warranted in which case you simply have two.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The trouble IMO is the price on those SSD's they seem so expensive when compared to the cost of the Host.
We only showed you SSDs as an example of how much overkill we could do for cheaper than the solutions you were currently being saddled with. No reason to assume that you need SSDs.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
And down the road (6 months maybe) purchase a second matching unit for HA which we really want.
If HA is warranted, yes. But your current environment and everything being currently considered are lower than SA (standard availability) and are actually LA (low availability.) So you know, without the slightest doubt, that HA is not needed in any way whatsoever.
-
@dafyre said:
@scottalanmiller What does he do in the case of an earthquaek (or a fire?) ... It takes out the whole compute & storage infrastructure... but what about his backups?
Edit: Ignore this comment, Dustin said what I was thinking.
It addresses that better than anything else that they are considering. So this isn't a problem at all.
-
The biggest issue here is we have people working globally, 24/7 all coming back to the main office. If this server failed for any reason all functional service would stop until it was back up and running.
Granted I think a second unit is reasonable for the cost of $10G its my boss who has to sell it.
-
yea we don't often have earthquakes or tornado's or hurricanes here in NY. A fire is certainly a possibility; but that is what offsite backups are for.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
The biggest issue here is we have people working globally, 24/7 all coming back to the main office. If this server failed for any reason all functional service would stop until it was back up and running.
This is totally a red herring. If this is of the slightest concern to you, then you would choose this solution for sure over what is currently considered. This solution is MORE available, MORE resilient to failure, FASTER to recover than any other proposed solution for the situation. So the more that yo need to service people 24x7, the more you would choose this solution.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
yea we don't often have earthquakes or tornado's or hurricanes here in NY. A fire is certainly a possibility; but that is what offsite backups are for.
I've been through both earthquakes and tornadoes living right where you are.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Granted I think a second unit is reasonable for the cost of $10G its my boss who has to sell it.
but if a second unit is worth it, why would they even talk about less available solutions as the only other alternative? This makes no sense.
-
I've never talked about a less available solution, a minimum solution sure.
I've always wanted HA in this environment (because I'm tired of getting that 1AM call).
And I think it's a reasonable cost, doesn't mean that upper management does. They might say "eh they can wait". In my mind though it is not something that should simply thrown off, especially since we're growing our overseas clients are asking us for more and more.
-
I'm not saying that HA is bad, I'm saying that the shop - both the existing management and the MSP - have decided that HA is the last thing that they need and is doing the exact opposite.
Introducing this approach improves the reliability, improves the performance, lowers the cost, lowers the maintenance.
The last thing we should do is jump to "oh, now that we've improved things over what is required, maybe we need to make an order of magnitude leap farther." There is no reason for that.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I've never talked about a less available solution, a minimum solution sure.
The SAN approach is less. The NAS approach is less. All less. This is proposed a a guaranteed improvement because it improves EVERY facet over anything currently suggested.
-
Ah well yes.
That is true that it would be a huge step to jump to HA, but it should would be nice
-
@DustinB3403 said:
I've always wanted HA in this environment (because I'm tired of getting that 1AM call).
Every IT person wants HA, that's a given. But the business is only looking at LA currently and is happy with that level of reliability.
-
That or the business (uppers) don't understand what HA offers at a "reasonable cost" even if not immediately purchased.
And Scott I did say:
@DustinB3403 said:
And down the road (6 months maybe) purchase a second matching unit for HA which we really want.
-
@DustinB3403 This is the way I think as well. If having a failover server seems feasible to the budget (and/or the bean counters), and the boss is sold on the idea as well, then it should be done.
Is it always cost effecient? No, not always.
Does it help the IT Department keep things running in the event of a major server outage? Yes.
Is it a replacement for good backups? Definitely not!
