Question about AWS
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
He said that it would actually be great if we use AWS as he sees more branches and road-warriors in the future.
How are those things affecting anything? Why is AWS better for branches or road warriors than your current premises? Do you have really bad Internet? If so, what will you do if your storage goes offline when your network isn't up?
Yes we do have bad internet here in Philippines. We would be getting multiple vendors for these though. We already have 1 fiber and 2 dsl lines which we plan to upgrade. However, still, just 2 weeks ago, we experienced a fiber outage and 1 dsl line. We still made use of 1 slow dsl for 2 days.
Does that make AWS better or worse? If you had AWS and your ISP went down, your office would be offline but your road warriors would still be working. If you had on premises and the Internet went down, your office would keep working but the road warriors would be offline.
Told him that but he said that with multiple ISPs including wireless 4Gs, we can survive. If submarine cables are the culprit, then no business country-wide.
You mean that he just avoided the question?
-
Even in the US with fast fiber, accessing 6TB over the Internet with SMB is ridiculously slow. Having to do it over DSL from another country.... impossible.
His proposed solution is going to cost a fortune and it wont' even work.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
Even in the US with fast fiber, accessing 6TB over the Internet with SMB is ridiculously slow. Having to do it over DSL from another country.... impossible.
His proposed solution is going to cost a fortune and it wont' even work.
Sort of. In anycase, you have been most helpful in opening my eyes. I can now concentrate on the Virtual Infrastructure I had proposed.
-
With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.
Should be more than the numbers. Sure it will lose a ton of money. But the far bigger deal is how it won't even work. The AD will work, just slowly. But the file server realistically just won't function. No one does this, ever, for a reason.
If what he was proposing was cheap or functional, everyone would do it. But absolutely no one does. It's not like everyone hasn't thought about it and realized it doesn't work. He is thinking that he can reinvent the wheel, in a way that is so obvious yet he seems to think that everyone hasn't gone down this path already.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
With the numbers you just brought in, he may be discouraged. I'll sure to include those to my report/recommendation.
Should be more than the numbers. Sure it will lose a ton of money. But the far bigger deal is how it won't even work. The AD will work, just slowly. But the file server realistically just won't function. No one does this, ever, for a reason.
If what he was proposing was cheap or functional, everyone would do it. But absolutely no one does. It's not like everyone hasn't thought about it and realized it doesn't work. He is thinking that he can reinvent the wheel, in a way that is so obvious yet he seems to think that everyone hasn't gone down this path already.
and that. Yeah, those 2 will be the dagger. I won't be spending my time with it...just a fraction on what service we can still use AWS for.
I do think that email server like Zimbra will be working great there though.
-
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.
-
Now if he really want to do things in a sensible way... he should be looking at modernizing. Basically he is many years behind and looking to not even try to modernize. He says he wants to "future proof", but his ideas are bad ones from twelve years ago. "Future proofing" is the opposite of what it is, it's not even a current design.
He's using Windows which makes no sense here and hasn't for like a decade. He's trying to use cloud in the "we just heard about cloud and got it totally wrong" way. He's using AD and SMB where they are the worst possible tools. He's looking to build out a VPN infrastructure a decade after we started abandoning that design (for the most part.)
There are loads of modern things that we could do to probably really improve stuff here. But it would all be polar opposite to what is here. Like.. .what purpose is AD serving (dont' say security, that's not something it does) when you don't need shared computing? Why not modern storage (like NExtCloud?)
Basically any modern network would naturally address the kinds of problems that you are having. But his design seems purpose built to make everything fail.
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I do think that email server like Zimbra will be working great there though.
Works great here for sure
Check out Mailcow, too. -
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.
Now that is a workload that can be great for cloud under the right circumstances. But if you already have an on premises situation, then it won't likely make sense and will be better to be on premises.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
or our other apps like project management which is LAMP-based.Now that is a workload that can be great for cloud under the right circumstances. But if you already have an on premises situation, then it won't likely make sense and will be better to be on premises.
Okay, got that. You've got a point in this (and all of the above
) . -
The problem with separating workloads, like having AD and storage on premises and LAMP apps on cloud, is that it would be "free" to run the LAMP stack on the on premises server since you already have it. So even though it might be cheap on AWS, it's still not "cheap" overall. And more for you to manage.
-
From your description, my guess is that very simple virtualization is what you need. KVM is where I would start. Free and enterprise. All of the features included. Keep it simple, and standard.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
From your description, my guess is that very simple virtualization is what you need. KVM is where I would start. Free and enterprise. All of the features included. Keep it simple, and standard.
I think so too. My first recommendation then was XenServer and even Hyper-V but my Director wanted VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
I was loving XenServer until I tried Proxmox :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_smiling_eyes:
-
I believe it is based-off KVM.
-
Though I haven't tried XCP-ng
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
I was loving XenServer until I tried Proxmox
We generally avoid ProxMox because the vendor isn't very good. It is just extra features bolted onto KVM and LXC. A pretty weird idea. It mostly works, and lots of people like it. But I would never trust that vendor in my business. They have a bad track record from
-
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
Though I haven't tried XCP-ng
XCP-NG is good, that would be the only logical way to approach Xen in this scenario.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Question about AWS:
@vhinzsanchez said in Question about AWS:
VMWare, it changed the landscape because of pricing.
Why? If there is one option that is not likely to make sense, that's it. Not that VMware is bad, but it is completely wrong for this use case. To the point that it should never even be considered, let alone considered strongly.
KVM, Xen, and Hyper-V are all fine options. I would lean to KVM, it makes more sense for you. More "future looking".
VMware makes zero sense.... it doesn't have the features, the cost, or the "future" that a business person would want. Again, this sounds like a totally bad emotional reaction. Ask him for his "business reasons"... how would VMware help to make money?
and it made the project to a crawl.
