@Dashrender said in Compare Azure to Windows On Prem for Normal Business Workloads: @Pete-S said in Compare Azure to Windows On Prem for Normal Business Workloads: @scottalanmiller said in Compare Azure to Windows On Prem for Normal Business Workloads: @Dashrender said in Compare Azure to Windows On Prem for Normal Business Workloads: Hosting Costs 1U Colocation America, /24 IP Range Monthly cost: ~$250/month Yearly cost: 12 x 250 = $3000 5 year cost: 5 x $3000 = $15K Last I looked, 1U was more like $225 with that many IPs. And I think typically you'd get fewer for a lot less cost and/or go IPv6. /24 is two IPs per VM. No need to pay for that. Yes, the basic 1U was $100 with two power outlets and then you get four usable IPv4s. A smaller server, say 16c EPYC, 128GB RAM, 2x500GB SSD, would be about $3500 and something even smaller, like a 8c Xeon @ 3.7Ghz, 64GB RAM, 2x500GB SSD around $2K. So you could scale down everything substantially if you wanted. But if all you are doing is running a few very small workloads then a couple of $5 Vultr VM would be cheaper. another factor is - are you running windows VMs, likely always cheaper to have your own hardware, but yeah, the amount of workloads definitely plays a factor here. That's true, Windows workloads make cloud computing harder to justify. Not much, but a little.

To add to this- I have an error that started appearing after updating their Fedora 29 and 30 instances. Further testing found that the error appears in different regions using their server type template installers or even a custom iso option that I used with net install. All I have to do is deploy, run dnf update and reboot. The error is present in every boot after the update. https://mangolassi.it/topic/19903/fedora-29-and-30-edac-skx-can-t-get-tolm-tohm-error-on-vultr

Thx for your help, you all. I will check the possibilities!

Here's a decent video on building a small Java class to interface with it: https://youtu.be/Od1FgLlK-mA

Very interesting to know that there are many services in the cloud.

@jmoore said in Cloud Models - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: @mary said in Cloud Models - CompTIA A+ 220-1001 Prof Messer: @scottalanmiller so cloud is a buzzword? Oh yes I used to see commercials with a kid talking about the "Almighty Cloud". This was several years ago but not much has changed in the marketing. It's absolutely used wrong all the time, but that doesn't make cloud a buzz work, cloud is a real specific thing, but almost no one uses it correctly.

This is what I think we would need, but I'm neither inclined to figure that out, nor do I want any additional equipment (VM or otherwise [MS recommends physical for this?!]) to do this. . .

@scottalanmiller said in Azure Warm Backup Site: @IRJ said in Azure Warm Backup Site: Both places had under 250 employees and had offside data centers. But had on prem for their primary workloads? We had a very old core that only supported a few apps and none of them were SaaS at the time

It is because of this licensing discrepency that we know that CloudAtCost was running a scam. They advertised Windows servers that were unlicensed, and unlicensable.

@dafyre said in Its is okay to sync/delete often from Cloud Storage?: @scottalanmiller said in Its is okay to sync/delete often from Cloud Storage?: I don't believe that there is any charge for Wasabi deletions. From what I can tell, Wasabi only charges for storage. There are no egress or deletion fees. Correct, same here. Unless you have the old accounts where they did charge for egress.

@jaredbusch Right. The datastores are at the hypervisor level. The vmdks would be on respective datastores and then in the VM, they would be also be shown as separate disks.

@travisdh1 said in No Data Centres Plan for Western Australian Government: @nadnerB Wow, just your highlights here read like a long nightmare. Only government would assume they could pressure another company into doing something it doesn't want to do. Then 'cloudify' the software, as if that's any different than virtualizing it! And as if that's any different than not virtualization it. It's really just gibberish.

@scottalanmiller said in Azure & "CentOS based" Compute node: @fuznutz04 said in Azure & "CentOS based" Compute node: @scottalanmiller said in Azure & "CentOS based" Compute node: But in the past CentOS was there as a direct option. We used it and have customer still using it. I wonder if MS will offer a base image again in the future with their new "commitment to Linux" claim. Their commitment was never to CentOS. Ubuntu and Suse. Ahh, missed that detail.

@Dashrender said in Ease of the "Cloud", Without the "Cloud": It surprises me that the costs could be lower. I would expect the economy of scale and lack of local IT support (or MSP/ITSP) requirements I would be allow prices to be driven lower. Of course you didn't say it would be lower, just said "often for much less cost." Scale is what makes it viable at all. Elastic scalability is an insanely expensive feature to deliver. And neither solution requires a local MSP/ITSP, that's part of the comparison. These are "plug and play" level products. But in reality, using a service like Amazon where the scale is really good you run into a heavy technical barrier to use that HC does not have (normally.) So if anything, cloud makes you have more ITSP requirements compared to HC. Cloud has a lot of hidden costs that HC does not have.

Thanks.

@Dashrender said in Windows VM in the cloud: I do realize that, but if the system works on LInux, it will probably work anywhere. That's not solid logic. Lots of things run on Linux but not in a browser.

@Dashrender said in Cloud Computing vs. Hyperconvergence: @travisdh1 said in Cloud Computing vs. Hyperconvergence: @Dashrender said in Cloud Computing vs. Hyperconvergence: @scottalanmiller said in Cloud Computing vs. Hyperconvergence: @travisdh1 said in Cloud Computing vs. Hyperconvergence: @Dashrender said in Cloud Computing vs. Hyperconvergence: But as we are constantly drilled by @scottalanmiller, most SMBs don't need HA. They can often afford hours, or even days of downtime. I generally agree with you. Our local 911 center was down for something like 36 hours a couple weeks back, made my head spin that. It's just the edge case to support @scottalanmiller's rule. They probably could have benefited from some better planning. I'm guessing they had a plan, they just forwarded their phones to another 911 call center to handle the situation while they were down. The county sheriff announced on the radio (yeah, I still listen to it when it's time for news), no 911 service, didn't even get the calls forwarded to a different 911 center. I mean, Wooster, OH and Wayne County are small, but you don't have 2 911 centers in the county at least? I would've thought the city and county would have one each, at least service doesn't get completely interrupted if one happens to go down, sheesh. Actually, that doesn't surprise me at all that the only have one. What is surprising is that they didn't have agreements with the next county over to take over their calls in case of an outage. Call the phone company and just hard forward all calls to the next county... wow.. just wow. Right, that is the logical way to go. Stark should have been able to handle those calls easily.

@Minion-Queen said in Office 365 "Oops" Stories: @BRRABill said in Office 365 "Oops" Stories: @Minion-Queen said Hence we when we do this one we actually migrate the data to 365 and 2 you don't delete the server for months until you are sure everything is where is should be and working correctly. Shoot I have a room of servers here from upgrades ... just in case. I'd have backups of backups before trying something like that. Just ... because comptuers YES!!! Yeah no such luck there. No backups at all. Except for I think one user who had put crashplan or something on their machine cause they were paranoid (I think there might have been good reason). I'm not sure "paranoid" would apply to those users.

@wirestyle22 I agree... and I like that better than the usual "you look like Anthony Michael Hall."