Windows VM in the cloud
-
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@StuartJordan said in Windows VM in the cloud:
In a lab Environment I don't see any issue with installing all roles on same VM but I've seen many people say they also wouldn't in production.
But why not? What's the benefit to splitting out the roles as they are all versioned together and all interdependent? Keeping them together means that the fail together, which makes more sense, are more performant and easier to maintain. Until you scale past one most, which is a lot of RDS, I don't really know of a benefit to splitting the roles but a fair number of negatives.
I'm not saying you cant, it's kind of Microsoft Guidelines though?
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2015/04/09/remote-desktop-services-rds-2012-session-deployment-scenarios-quick-start/"Guideline" only sort of. That's the "guidelines" of the performance team, not MS as a whole. And MS themselves provide the single VM deployment model not just as an option, but a built in and ready to go one. If you don't need the performance, then the guideline to split doesn't exist. I'd argue that that very link actually suggests, through implication, that the single server deployment is best when not needed for performance needs - which is what I said above.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
Unfortunately, it's an EMR system & Windows is the only option.
But.... is that relevant to what I said? That it IS EMR doens't mean that it is a viable, supported EMR. And the issue is not that it is Windows, but that the design is archaic and suggestive of deep rooted support problems.
I'm not disagreeing w you, I'm just stating what it is.
It is viable, it is supported by the vendor but it exist's as 100% Windows only -
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
It is viable, it is supported by the vendor but it exist's as 100% Windows only
Is it? What I am asking is.... how can you tell that it is viable when it appears that they are unable to maintain support for the product? Why is it languishing in such an archaic state if they are still able to support it?
What I'm questioning is... how can you feel confident that it is viable or supportable? Just because they sell you support says nothing about if they can actually support it. I've written recently about this business model - selling abandoned products that are unsupportable and charging for support and giving the money back if they have to walk away unable to support it. The customer holds all the risk, so it works really well.
-
This article looks at the issue from the position of not being able to virtualize, but the questions remain the same.... basically your vendor doesn't appear to either have support for the product or doesn't care that it doesn't work well. So you need to determine.. why? Are they unable to support it? Are they out of money? Do they think that they can just take advantage of customers who don't question them or shop around? Are they no longer able to hire the talent that they need to keep developing? Something is causing this software to fall below common standards (from over a decade ago.) Whatever reason that is is one of great concern to anyone in your business because it very, very likely is a huge piece of risk for you.
http://www.smbitjournal.com/2016/10/you-cant-virtualize-that/
-
It is 100% virtualized, it just happens to be 100% windows!
-
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
It is 100% virtualized, it just happens to be 100% windows!
That's why I stated that you needed to read it and not get caught up in the virtualization bit. All of the logic still applies. And again, it has nothing to do with being Windows, it's about being legacy. You are getting caught on the wrong details. It's the issues around support and modernity, not that it uses Windows or is virtual, that we are discussing.
-
Maybe someone might have some better info.
This is the system https://www.nextgen.com/ -
@FATeknollogee said in Windows VM in the cloud:
Maybe someone might have some better info.
This is the system https://www.nextgen.com/The tough part is that you have no way to really know. The only thing that you know is that they are lacking a modern interface for their system that lags the market by a huge margin. What you wonder is why. Depending on the answer to that question, it might or might not be a viable system for you. But sadly, there is no way to get that answer. You can probe the vendor, but they have no obligation to tell you.
-
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad choice, or that you even have any options, only that it is a valid concern and something to be aware of and possibly look into.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows VM in the cloud:
I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad choice, or that you even have any options, only that it is a valid concern and something to be aware of and possibly look into.
Scott, are you aware of any EHRs are that supported on Linux endpoints? We have athenaHealth, it's definitely not, it is web browser based, but still has crazy limitations tying it into Windows for thinks like file/picture uploads. They specifically don't support osX for those things. The main functions should be usable in Chrome on LInux, but if you have any issues they will tell you it's not supported and demand that you move to Windows or OSX.
-
@Dashrender - www.AdvancedMD.com currently supports only Internet Explorer because of ActiveX. They are working on a Chrome compatible version that is supposed to be released in the not so distant future.
-
@syko24 said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@Dashrender - www.AdvancedMD.com currently supports only Internet Explorer because of ActiveX. They are working on a Chrome compatible version that is supposed to be released in the not so distant future.
OK? so that means they don't support running on Linux..
-
@syko24 said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@Dashrender - www.AdvancedMD.com currently supports only Internet Explorer because of ActiveX. They are working on a Chrome compatible version that is supposed to be released in the not so distant future.
Hmmmm according to this it seems that it may already be available. http://www.advancedmd.com/blog/advancedmd-for-any-browser-a-sneak-peek
Last time I checked it failed to login from Chrome and had a message saying that it will be available soon.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows VM in the cloud:
Scott, are you aware of any EHRs are that supported on Linux endpoints?
I'm not looking for Linux, I'm looking for modern. Things in the modern world are OS agnostic because they don't get installed or run on the OS but run in the browser (unless there is specific needs to the contrary.) A proper, modern system delivering things kind of data should have a compatibility dependency, like HTML5, not an OS one of any sort. It shouldn't run "on" Linux any more than MangoLassi does.
-
I do realize that, but if the system works on LInux, it will probably work anywhere.
-
@syko24 said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@syko24 said in Windows VM in the cloud:
@Dashrender - www.AdvancedMD.com currently supports only Internet Explorer because of ActiveX. They are working on a Chrome compatible version that is supposed to be released in the not so distant future.
Hmmmm according to this it seems that it may already be available. http://www.advancedmd.com/blog/advancedmd-for-any-browser-a-sneak-peek
Last time I checked it failed to login from Chrome and had a message saying that it will be available soon.
Looks like at least someone has an active, functional development team doing something
This is a small thing in the grand scheme. But one has to ask.... if someone can make a functional EMR, this should be so trivial that we can't even imagine how much of an after through it should be. If they can't make browser compatibility, how can we trust them with patient data? -
@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.
