ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead

    IT Discussion
    windows windows server windows server 2003 windows 2003 cluster windows cluster storageworks 500 storageworks 500 g2 das
    9
    29
    2.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • DanpD
      Danp
      last edited by

      Do they have a plan to replace this outdated tech with something current?

      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @Danp
        last edited by

        @Danp said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

        Do they have a plan to replace this outdated tech with something current?

        Yes, there was a six month plan in place already, but it just got moved to something like a six day plan.

        FATeknollogeeF 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • FATeknollogeeF
          FATeknollogee @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

          @Danp said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

          Do they have a plan to replace this outdated tech with something current?

          Yes, there was a six month plan in place already, but it just got moved to something like a six day plan.

          Love it when that happens!!

          DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DustinB3403D
            DustinB3403 @FATeknollogee
            last edited by

            @FATeknollogee said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

            @scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

            @Danp said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

            Do they have a plan to replace this outdated tech with something current?

            Yes, there was a six month plan in place already, but it just got moved to something like a six day plan.

            Love it when that happens!!

            The system is still f***** because they have to replace it today and they have to worry about good backups today.

            2003 is ancient

            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • ObsolesceO
              Obsolesce
              last edited by

              I'm guessing the thing hasn't been maintained at all which would have brought this about sooner but in a controlled manner.

              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                last edited by

                @DustinB3403 said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                @FATeknollogee said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                @scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                @Danp said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                Do they have a plan to replace this outdated tech with something current?

                Yes, there was a six month plan in place already, but it just got moved to something like a six day plan.

                Love it when that happens!!

                The system is still f***** because they have to replace it today and they have to worry about good backups today.

                2003 is ancient

                Backups are running today.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @Obsolesce
                  last edited by

                  @Obsolesce said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                  I'm guessing the thing hasn't been maintained at all which would have brought this about sooner but in a controlled manner.

                  Pretty much. We weren't even told about it. Not that we needed to be, we consult for this customer, we aren't their outsourced IT.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • nadnerBN
                    nadnerB
                    last edited by

                    well, that's a Fuster Cluck and a half

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • travisdh1T
                      travisdh1
                      last edited by

                      And that's why we call them IPOD. (Inverted Pyramid of Doom). Welcome them to the club, hopefully doing it correctly this time!

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @travisdh1
                        last edited by

                        @travisdh1 said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                        And that's why we call them IPOD. (Inverted Pyramid of Doom). Welcome them to the club, hopefully doing it correctly this time!

                        Yeah, we mentioned that on the call. But it predated the people who were there now (it even predated their CAREERS!) It's such an old system. When a system is 16 years old, it's actually not that common to find people who were actively working in IT at that time. If you assume most people don't start IT until the age that they would have finished college, that's 23. Add sixteen career years, that's 39. Add a year for planning of the project before it was purchased, and you are age 40. So only people likely to be 40+, who started in IT right away and didn't move from another career, could be reasonably expected to have been in the field at the time that the system was decided on! That's nuts.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          This really is a good example of why the IPOD is so bad. The "never fails" DAS failed, but at least it didn't lose the data, it just caused a large panic outage.

                          But there are three servers, instead of one. And two of them failed. One completely (node 2), and one partially (the DAS.) Had only Node 1 been purchased, they would have had no outage, no failures, and made it sixteen years at about one quarter the cost, and never seen an outage at all.

                          The "just buy one server" here would have kicked the crap out of the reliability of the IPOD! No redundancy on this system was ever used, but because it had that redundancy, it caused things to fail that should not have.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                          • DonahueD
                            Donahue
                            last edited by

                            @scottalanmiller, I read the first 10 posts or so like it was your ships log after you shipwrecked on a deserted island, and you were preserving the record for whoever found your body.

                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller @Donahue
                              last edited by

                              @Donahue said in Windows Server 2003 Cluster Dead:

                              @scottalanmiller, I read the first 10 posts or so like it was your ships log after you shipwrecked on a deserted island, and you were preserving the record for whoever found your body.

                              LMAO.

                              Captain's log January 5, 2019.... still no fresh water and the server won't boot. We lost James this morning, dehydration and sun exposure. Also, the SAN died.

                              jmooreJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 5
                              • jmooreJ
                                jmoore @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller lol

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • 1
                                • 2
                                • 2 / 2
                                • First post
                                  Last post