What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Yeah. I see the value of the point but can't figure out how to apply it meaningfully.
Example:
Is a FreeBSD VM a server?
If we add a web GUI to that VM (FreeNAS) does it change?
If we install that same OS to bare metal, does that change?
If we add vendor support to the same thing (TrueNAS) does that change?
If we get a functionally identical product from another vendor (Synology) does that change?Which point is the line? Is it the GUI, the bare metal, the support, etc?
I can't tell.
Now some products like NetApp remove OS access. That's a hard line that I could totally buy as a limiter. You definitely stop having a usefully general purpose OS. But I don't thing anyone has stuff like that. It's all stuff like Unitrends where you get full OS access if you want.
-
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
I don't know. One could argue there are no servers. Only hypervisors and appliances, in that case.
-
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
To make it more blurry...
Before VMs we still often got just the software for bare metal.
And most appliance VMs let you do more than is intended. FreeNAS or Synology being key examples. Thy might be intended as storage. But they can be desktops if you want.
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I see an appliance as something designed to do a specific task, and also limiting to that specific task.
For example, Unitrends Backup Appliance. Sure it's a physical server, but it's designed for a specific task, and nothing else should be done with it.
Just like your refrigerator is an appliance. You may be able to do other things with it, turn it in to a go-kart or a super freezer... but it's designed for a specific task.
Problem is that nearly every VM is meant for one specific task. Where do you draw the lines?
Well, if have a single VM for a webserver. That doesn't make it an appliance, and I don't at all consider that an appliance.
I see what you mean, though. I have no idea where to draw the line, because you can argue on either side to push the line further in either direction.
Before virtualization, an appliance was two parts. Hardware and of course Software (OS). Now that some appliances no longer require the hardware aspect, you get a VM. When you look at an appliance VM and a typical server VM built from an iso, the only difference is you lose the ability to use other software or services like you would from the iso. Since servers are now deployed for one function , is there really difference?
I don't know. One could argue there are no servers. Only hypervisors and appliances, in that case.
Sure and in many ways that is true. Appliance and server are nearly the same thing today. All an appliance is is a specialized interface for a task. And both Linux and Windows are loaded with those by default for loads of tasks.
-
I think we really need to look in to the definition. Like we did with JBOD. Maybe appliance is just too loose of a definition to really pin it down and draw a meaningful line.
-
@Tim_G said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I think we really need to look in to the definition. Like we did with JBOD. Maybe appliance is just too loose of a definition to really pin it down and draw a meaningful line.
Exactly. I agree completely. We can't really begin to answer a question like this till we know what it means.
I think ...... we need a thread just for that.
-
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I agree with @scottalanmiller on this. I would definitely consider appliances as linux servers because they are 100% servers.
A server is:
a computer or computer program that manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.They are generally running an offshoot of a major distro, so how aren't they servers?
well, if we're going to go down this road, than many of us have dozens of servers, and most of us probably find that we have 'nix that Windows by a long shot!.
Is that what the OP was looking for? eh @IRJ? is that what you wanted to know?
I guess I have to add XS server and ESXi server and my Buffalo NAS, and my Mitel VOIP server (no clue, but I would assume a 'nix unpinning), etc.
-
@Dashrender said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I guess I have to add XS server and ESXi server and my Buffalo NAS, and my Mitel VOIP server (no clue, but I would assume a 'nix unpinning), etc.
Hypervisors are tough. XS has a full Linux server as part of it, but one you are expected to not really use, but it's there. ESXi has only the hypervisor, so I'd not think to count that. KVM has a full Linux server in every sense, so maybe that counts. Hyper-V has no Windows, unless deployed with it as extra, in which case I'd count it.
I think the hypervisors themselves would never be counted (anyone else have an opinion?) but that a full OS install somewhere to use with them would.
-
@Dashrender said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
well, if we're going to go down this road, than many of us have dozens of servers, and most of us probably find that we have 'nix that Windows by a long shot!.
That's why I felt it needed to be defined. Windows does not lend itself to packaging into an "appliance" or anything akin to one so tends not to be deployed that way. Many UNIX variants, whoever, do so appliances are almost just how UNIX is used in the SMB world. I know that all the NTG posts here were discounting them, even though we manage nearly all of them as normal servers. If they are a full OS, operated as a full OS, act like a full OS... why would they not be included? Yet we weren't listing them, and I assume no one else was either.
Which is fine, but we need a definition of what was being answered or the survey doesn't tell us anything, it's just random confusing info.
Now if we are digging into what an appliance is or isn't, or what is counted or isn't as an OS that is run, I'd lean towards a Mitel system which is black box not being counted, it's a black box. But a FreePBX system should be counted, as it is an open OS.
-
@Dashrender said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I agree with @scottalanmiller on this. I would definitely consider appliances as linux servers because they are 100% servers.
A server is:
a computer or computer program that manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.They are generally running an offshoot of a major distro, so how aren't they servers?
well, if we're going to go down this road, than many of us have dozens of servers, and most of us probably find that we have 'nix that Windows by a long shot!.
Is that what the OP was looking for? eh @IRJ? is that what you wanted to know?
I guess I have to add XS server and ESXi server and my Buffalo NAS, and my Mitel VOIP server (no clue, but I would assume a 'nix unpinning), etc.
I was just curious to see what other environments looked like. I didn't need anything in particular answered.
-
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Dashrender said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@IRJ said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
I agree with @scottalanmiller on this. I would definitely consider appliances as linux servers because they are 100% servers.
A server is:
a computer or computer program that manages access to a centralized resource or service in a network.They are generally running an offshoot of a major distro, so how aren't they servers?
well, if we're going to go down this road, than many of us have dozens of servers, and most of us probably find that we have 'nix that Windows by a long shot!.
Is that what the OP was looking for? eh @IRJ? is that what you wanted to know?
I guess I have to add XS server and ESXi server and my Buffalo NAS, and my Mitel VOIP server (no clue, but I would assume a 'nix unpinning), etc.
I was just curious to see what other environments looked like. I didn't need anything in particular answered.
A very ecumenical answer, lol.
-
100%
-
@Jimmy9008 said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
100%
Does that mean no NAS or any sort of appliances?
-
@scottalanmiller True, I must say I really didn't think about it in depth
-
@scottalanmiller 99% Windows
-
All server all Windows but 2, about 95%.
-
Currently 2 win, 1 phys and 1 vm, and 4 linux vm excluding hosts (xen/kvm). Going to have 8/9 linuxes and 3+1 windows in next months, say april.
Use Windows only when our required software can't run elsewhere.
You have to add 3 phys linuxes if you count nas stuff and pbx. -
@Jimmy9008 said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller 99% Windows
you have 100 servers?
-
@Dashrender said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@Jimmy9008 said in What percentage of servers in your organization are Microsoft?:
@scottalanmiller 99% Windows
you have 100 servers?
Haha, not yet. But close! 68 last time I looked.
