What Are You Doing Right Now
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Isn't one of the strenghts of virtualization that you can allocate resources in a way where wasted resources are at the very least greatly reduced?
At a physical level, that's sometimes true. They used to say the same thing about operating systems, though. This can be a licensing nightmare though.
Exactly - remember, Windows can only move between hosts once every 90 days. So assuming you have a 3 node cluster, if you want a single VM to be able to seamless move between all three servers based on load, then you need three Windows server licenses for that one VM. You could also license all three servers with DataCenter Licenses, which allows for unlimited VMs on each host, and depending on the number of VMs that is worth while, but that number is pretty high for most SMBs as DC licensing starts at $5K per server and goes up depending on the number of cores.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Isn't one of the strenghts of virtualization that you can allocate resources in a way where wasted resources are at the very least greatly reduced?
At a physical level, that's sometimes true. They used to say the same thing about operating systems, though. This can be a licensing nightmare though.
Exactly - remember, Windows can only move between hosts once every 90 days. So assuming you have a 3 node cluster, if you want a single VM to be able to seamless move between all three servers based on load, then you need three Windows server licenses for that one VM. You could also license all three servers with DataCenter Licenses, which allows for unlimited VMs on each host, and depending on the number of VMs that is worth while, but that number is pretty high for most SMBs as DC licensing starts at $5K per server and goes up depending on the number of cores.
We have DC Licensing
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@dashrender If they aren't considering all of this I highly doubt they have calculated iops too. I don't get triggered a lot but I feel like we're setting ourselves up to fail.
Your company definitely is. You should mention these things.
They need to take a step back and do something like - run DPACK for a few weeks, use that information to build the servers that will be in the summer, and they will probably be overkill for the DAG situation.
I don't know how these guys are going to react to me involving myself in this process but I'd rather deal with social consequences than IT consequences
That's a terrible way to think of it. IT does not override businesses processes.
Can you elaborate? I'm not sure how I'm overriding a business practice.
There is no such thing as an IT consequence. And you are using the term social consequences to mean business reaction to your involvement. You are feeling the need to override what the business wants to do. If they don't want to hear it, it's not your concern. The consequences are not yours. If the business cares about X and you think Y is what IT wants, IT is wrong. Only the desires of the business matter, nothing that IT "feels".
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Where do you see the wasted resources?
-
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Where do you see the wasted resources?
He has a second server doing nothing but being a replica. He is calling that a waste. The point is hardware redundancy you're always going to waste resources are used because you have redundant hardware that's the point of the word redundant.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Where do you see the wasted resources?
He has a second server doing nothing but being a replica. He is calling that a waste. The point is hardware redundancy you're always going to waste resources are used because you have redundant hardware that's the point of the word redundant.
Yeah - I was looking for him to say this and come to this conclusion on his own. Realizing that his concern was really the point in having the extra server in the first place.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Where do you see the wasted resources?
He has a second server doing nothing but being a replica. He is calling that a waste. The point is hardware redundancy you're always going to waste resources are used because you have redundant hardware that's the point of the word redundant.
The new hosts are many times more powerful/greater capacity than what we currently have. As an example, If we're using 128 GB of memory with very little expected growth over the next 10 years there is no reason to buy 256 GB of memory. That would mean half of the memory would be "wasted" if it's just sitting there not being utilized. Where as we can cluster and use any of the resources that would normally be wasted right?
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Where do you see the wasted resources?
He has a second server doing nothing but being a replica. He is calling that a waste. The point is hardware redundancy you're always going to waste resources are used because you have redundant hardware that's the point of the word redundant.
The new hosts are many times more powerful/greater capacity than what we currently have. As an example, If we're using 128 GB of memory with very little expected growth over the next 10 years there is no reason to buy 256 GB of memory. That would mean half of the memory would be "wasted" if it's just sitting there not being utilized. Where as we can cluster and use any of the resources that would normally be wasted right?
what are you wanting to cluster? Use a real example, perhaps then we'll see where you are trying to go.
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Redundancy and waste are kind of the same term. If it isn't wasted, it's not redundant. More or less.
-
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@Dashrender said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@wirestyle22 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
We have DC Licensing
Well that's a start - but still doesn't imply you'll get the gains you're might be thinking.
i.e. let's assume you have two servers that are spec'ed correctly to run all loads on one server. Splitting the load over two hosts doesn't really gain you anything performance wise. Uptime wise it gives you a little - i.e. if one host dies, the VMs on the other will be online the whole time, while the other move to the new host.
I'm not expecting huge performance gains though. I just think there is a better way to achieve hardware redundancy than what they are planning which doesn't involve wasting a lot of resources.
Where do you see the wasted resources?
He has a second server doing nothing but being a replica. He is calling that a waste. The point is hardware redundancy you're always going to waste resources are used because you have redundant hardware that's the point of the word redundant.
The new hosts are many times more powerful/greater capacity than what we currently have. As an example, If we're using 128 GB of memory with very little expected growth over the next 10 years there is no reason to buy 256 GB of memory. That would mean half of the memory would be "wasted" if it's just sitting there not being utilized. Where as we can cluster and use any of the resources that would normally be wasted right?
Of course it would be wasted. If you cluster, half of your resources are idle in case the other half fail. If half of the resources are not wasted, and something fails, where would it go?
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
Sunny and cold Thursday morning it's 20°F sitting behind traffic
Your sitting and your doing 75 mph?
Odd.
Yes you are sitting in your car,... but your car is not sitting still... -
@gjacobse I never said standstill traffic just traffic. I don't like people in front of me that means they're going to slow.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse I never said standstill traffic just traffic. I don't like people in front of me that means they're going to slow.
You sound like my brother... nearly 80% of the conversation time is about other drivers and idiots who 'try to race him'...
Get over it,.. People are morons, don't know how to drive, drive to slow, are in the wrong lane, on their phone playing Ingress or some other non- driving task..... But that's just an opinion.
-
@gjacobse said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse I never said standstill traffic just traffic. I don't like people in front of me that means they're going to slow.
You sound like my brother... nearly 80% of the conversation time is about other drivers and idiots who 'try to race him'...
Get over it,.. People are morons, don't know how to drive, drive to slow, are in the wrong lane, on their phone playing Ingress or some other non- driving task..... But that's just an opinion.
I think you need to step back and chill the fuck out. I like to set my cruise control 80. they are in my way. people can go faster than me people go slower than me,just can't be in my way.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse I never said standstill traffic just traffic. I don't like people in front of me that means they're going to slow.
This is typically my driving pattern as well, I normally lead the pack of cars, definitely dislike not being the leader in that situation.
-
I set mine to 79 (speed limit 75), that usually puts me passing most people but then have a handful of people going faster than me so I'm less likely to get pulled over and given a ticket.
-
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse I never said standstill traffic just traffic. I don't like people in front of me that means they're going to slow.
You sound like my brother... nearly 80% of the conversation time is about other drivers and idiots who 'try to race him'...
Get over it,.. People are morons, don't know how to drive, drive to slow, are in the wrong lane, on their phone playing Ingress or some other non- driving task..... But that's just an opinion.
I think you need to step back and chill the fuck out. I like to set my cruise control 80. they are in my way. people can go faster than me people go slower than me,just can't be in my way.
You need to live in Spain. No speed limits enforced. But drive in the wrong lane and block people and you're in trouble.
-
@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@JaredBusch said in What Are You Doing Right Now:
@gjacobse I never said standstill traffic just traffic. I don't like people in front of me that means they're going to slow.
You sound like my brother... nearly 80% of the conversation time is about other drivers and idiots who 'try to race him'...
Get over it,.. People are morons, don't know how to drive, drive to slow, are in the wrong lane, on their phone playing Ingress or some other non- driving task..... But that's just an opinion.
I think you need to step back and chill the fuck out. I like to set my cruise control 80. they are in my way. people can go faster than me people go slower than me,just can't be in my way.
You need to live in Spain. No speed limits enforced. But drive in the wrong lane and block people and you're in trouble.
Same goes for Germany.
