Looking to Buy a SAN
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@bnrstnr said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Exactly. I'm using in a lot of places in production with ~10k users and twice as many devices that is using the serveless functions in many areas... basically for free. And, that's just the start (one example) of it... Having a VM with enough power to process that as frequently as it's getting done now along with all the other benefits around it, there's truly no comparison. Scaling it down to how a typical SMB would use it, well that's a no-brainer, as it'd be totally free and 100% beneficial. I don't think one's ignorance of a technology justifies it's disqualification of use in the real world.
This should probably be it's own topic, but here we are... I'm totally ignorant to Azure and serverless concepts in general. What types of real world services/processes are SMBs using (or could/should be using) serverless Azure for?
There's a few different scenarios. Anything reactionary essentially. Send a message/email based on an event, do some kind of work based on messages in a message queue, transform or modify data, etc. You can even use it to build and define APIs. I have an API running in Vercel (not Azure but another serverless offering) and I don't have to run the service in a VM full time.
Invoicing and Accounts Payable is a big use of it
I don't understand how those are serverless? There is software running - right? where is that software running? This is something I completely don't understand - and I'm guessing @bnrstnr likely doesn't either - but he'll correct me if I'm wrong and he does.
It's not the best terminology. But it's the standard now. It's like "API only" processing, getting as light as you reasonably can.
API processing is just one of many.
If you want to bother to learn more about serverless tech and use cases, give this PDF a read:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/architecture/serverlessI think if you read it without bias, you'll better understand and grasp it.
I think you are missing the whole point. When hosted/cloud isn't an option because it can't be done, going to serverless doesn't fix anything.
You are acting like a niche technology, a great one, but niche, is a panacea for everything. Name me one company, any company, anywhere in the world, that has gone completely serverless and no longer needs anything but end user workpoints with zero workload on them? Any company, anywhere.
Again no one said serverless for everything. You're literally quoting someone who all they did was correct you and say "API processing is just one of many" and trying to argue that it isn't for every workload. No one said it was so I don't know why you're arguing here.
Actually, you did. Because you keep saying that alternatives are more costly, that means serverless is always better. You use blanket statements that only work if you are saying serverless for 100%. If you have any, and this truly means ANY, workload that requires you to have on premises or IaaS workloads, all of the logic behind the costing goes out the window.
Why? Because, for example, a huge percentage of businesses must own a server or at least a sizeable amount of IaaS. The workloads that you want to put on serverless can generally run on the excess capacity of that server or IaaS. Already paid for. So free, and without the need to redevelop the workload just to work on serverless.
The "serverless costs less" or "you only pay for what you use" arguments only apply when you are 100% serverless or are in the absolutely unique position of your servers being saturated and having no capacity to spare.
We often point to the "waste" of not using cloud, but ignore it when we want to show how cloud is cheap.
Quote it. You're putting words in peoples mouths. No one said that. None of these arguments apply to 100% serverless. Quote where anyone said it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
We had 200mb comcast internet that went out twice in living there for 5 years. Once was because someone wrecked into the pole.
You are exaggerating the internet situation.You are using a personal anecdote to try to pretend that real world Internet problems do not exist. Yes, there are places where it is good, and places where it is bad. And places where people have no issues, and places where people have big issues.
Anecdotes don't apply. Until you can guarantee that companies won't have issues, not outages, slowdowns, etc. over a long period of time, which you cannot do, you are asking them to risk huge investments that they won't be able to leverage if that situation changes.
If you are like me, you also research Internet before living somewhere and choose a home based on the quality of available Internet, rather than moving to where you are randomly told to go and taking what is available. So in at least my case, my home example would always be filtered by me having selected where I live and that being a top factor in where I would choose to be.
You're using personal anecdotes of "people you talk to". We all can talk to people and I don't know of anyone I've talked to who couldn't get decent internet, especially not a business.
You're right, you can't guarantee that. But with publicly hosted solutions you can just go somewhere else that has a connection. An argument you have made before.
There are mitigations to failure, of course. But what about a doctor, vet, manufacturing facility, store, restaurant, hotel... they can send a few people home, sure. But what about the business itself?
Kind of like hosted Vetastic? What do the customers do if that goes down?
-
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
-
@Obsolesce said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Exactly. I'm using in a lot of places in production with ~10k users and twice as many devices that is using the serveless functions in many areas... basically for free. And, that's just the start (one example) of it... Having a VM with enough power to process that as frequently as it's getting done now along with all the other benefits around it, there's truly no comparison. Scaling it down to how a typical SMB would use it, well that's a no-brainer, as it'd be totally free and 100% beneficial. I don't think one's @scottalanmiller's ignorance of a technology justifies it's disqualification of general use in the real world.
And obviously he thought the same thing, because acted like the tiny VMs, that normally would be completely free (no cost to convert, no cost to run) to handle those workloads would be "no comparison" expensive. Scaling down to SMB he said would be 100% free.
How are you 100% if not fitting 100% into the serverless free tier? Any one VM or physical server would not be free.
It sounds great to say we aren't saying go "all in", but the arguments being made are based on eliminating everything else.
-
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.
Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.
-
This Scott guy sounds like a scam, or maybe he just plays an IT guy on TV. Who the hell is he?
-
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
You keep saying this, but you're referencing companies that just lift and shift. We have said over and over again obviously that's more expensive. Applications need to be redesigned to leverage public cloud efficiently.
Right, but you never talk about the cost of doing that. This is generally a cost that is massively larger (orders of magnitude larger) than the potential cost savings of any infrastructure.
Take QuickBooks as a really, really common example. It costs a few hundred dollars per year to license. It requires extremely little infrastructure... Windows Server, RDS... a few things. But nowhere near $5K a year.
Now tell me what it will cost to recreate QuickBooks (on any platform.) There is a reason that when they went to cloud options that even Intuit couldn't recreate it, they had to drop loads of functionality. People who need QB, which is a lot of people because of certain tax things that it is relatively unique in, have very few options out there and essentially all are very antiquated. Remaking it is absolutely possible, but there is a reason why no software vendor out there is considering that that will be of significant cost savings enough to be willing to invest in it.
We are talking tens of millions of dollars. Even if we are ridiculous and claim we can do it for one million dollars... that's 200 years of running your own server for this, easily. And you only save that much if the resulting product never needs code updates and the serverless system is 100% free.
If you are an Intuit kind of company and can make this investment and spread the benefits around thousands or tens of thousands of customers, sure, IF it has real benefit, you can consider doing it.
But then you have to address all of the places that either for legal reasons or technology ones cannot use hosted services. No matter how obnoxious people are, in the real world, businesses commonly struggle to get fast and reliable Internet services. They do right here in the Dallas Metro, they are really screwed in the Houston Metro, we have customers all over the country that can't rely on their Internet and no providers short of "build out your own fiber" exist.
Check Tyler, TX, that's been one of our hardest. We cannot find any option, short of laying our own fiber, to beat 18/1 AT&T DSL. We've talked to everyone, we've brought in consultants.
I'll just leave this here so you can argue with yourself about why or why not businesses should be using Quickbooks. Just tell them to use Excel and the problem is fixed......
Sadly, no one has made/provided a QB script to run on Excel to make this product die... Damn.. I wonder how much that would be worth?
-
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
We had 200mb comcast internet that went out twice in living there for 5 years. Once was because someone wrecked into the pole.
You are exaggerating the internet situation.You are using a personal anecdote to try to pretend that real world Internet problems do not exist. Yes, there are places where it is good, and places where it is bad. And places where people have no issues, and places where people have big issues.
Anecdotes don't apply. Until you can guarantee that companies won't have issues, not outages, slowdowns, etc. over a long period of time, which you cannot do, you are asking them to risk huge investments that they won't be able to leverage if that situation changes.
If you are like me, you also research Internet before living somewhere and choose a home based on the quality of available Internet, rather than moving to where you are randomly told to go and taking what is available. So in at least my case, my home example would always be filtered by me having selected where I live and that being a top factor in where I would choose to be.
You're using personal anecdotes of "people you talk to". We all can talk to people and I don't know of anyone I've talked to who couldn't get decent internet, especially not a business.
You're right, you can't guarantee that. But with publicly hosted solutions you can just go somewhere else that has a connection. An argument you have made before.
There are mitigations to failure, of course. But what about a doctor, vet, manufacturing facility, store, restaurant, hotel... they can send a few people home, sure. But what about the business itself?
Kind of like hosted Vetastic? What do the customers do if that goes down?
They go to on premises, which is why we make it clear we don't recommend running on cloud unless they are in a position to go offline at the clinic or to close while they have no Internet. There is a reason that Vetastic is ground up meant to be run on premises because with only the most unlikely situations is cloud sensible for a vet clinic, except as a failover mechanism for brief periods while on prem is down. Which is why Vetastic uses it as a failover mechanism and never recommends that a customer demand to run off of it as their primary.
-
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
Sadly, no one has made/provided a QB script to run on Excel to make this product die... Damn.. I wonder how much that would be worth?
MS did, once upon a time. But it didn't make it. but seriously, it was a product that they had. And it was good.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.
Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.
Again the only costs that were mentioned was directly related to serverless. You interjected your own ideas here and made a mountain out of nothing.
-
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.
Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.
Again the only costs that were mentioned was directly related to serverless. You interjected your own ideas here and made a mountain out of nothing.
Then I apologize. Their serverless offerings are good value similar to the industry and I read into what was being said inappropriately.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
Sadly, no one has made/provided a QB script to run on Excel to make this product die... Damn.. I wonder how much that would be worth?
MS did, once upon a time. But it didn't make it. but seriously, it was a product that they had. And it was good.
Any links to proof of that, never heard or can find anything about such a product. I dobut they'd compete with their own Dynamics offerings. Nor would MS ever recommend anyone run their whole accounting in excel even if using a bunch of messy VB inside of it.
-
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
Sadly, no one has made/provided a QB script to run on Excel to make this product die... Damn.. I wonder how much that would be worth?
MS did, once upon a time. But it didn't make it. but seriously, it was a product that they had. And it was good.
Any links to proof of that, never heard or can find anything about such a product. I dobut they'd compete with their own Dynamics offerings. Nor would MS ever recommend anyone run their whole accounting in excel even if using a bunch of messy VB inside of it.
QB doesn't compete with Dynamix, either. At least not normally.
It was a two stage process. First MS made the QB killer app. Then when it died off, MS said that the product had no real purpose as just buying Excel and using some template at the time would do the same thing.
MS SBA Small Business Accounting, became MS Office Accounting. We used it from first release until they discontinued. Stayed through every iteration. We were the first MS Partner on it, so we got a lot of attention from MS to help us use it. It was an excellent product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Accounting
at the time, they didn't have BizSight 365 as transparently available right after Accounting discontinued as they make it seem now. But it is still available.
-
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
Nor would MS ever recommend anyone run their whole accounting in excel even if using a bunch of messy VB inside of it.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/find-a-replacement-for-discontinued-microsoft-accounting-software/
According to Microsoft's Office Accounting Website, the company has "determined that existing free templates within Office used with Excel was a better option for small businesses, and the Microsoft Dynamics ERP products were appropriate for mid-range organizations."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
Sadly, no one has made/provided a QB script to run on Excel to make this product die... Damn.. I wonder how much that would be worth?
MS did, once upon a time. But it didn't make it. but seriously, it was a product that they had. And it was good.
Any links to proof of that, never heard or can find anything about such a product. I dobut they'd compete with their own Dynamics offerings. Nor would MS ever recommend anyone run their whole accounting in excel even if using a bunch of messy VB inside of it.
QB doesn't compete with Dynamix, either. At least not normally.
It was a two stage process. First MS made the QB killer app. Then when it died off, MS said that the product had no real purpose as just buying Excel and using some template at the time would do the same thing.
MS SBA Small Business Accounting, became MS Office Accounting. We used it from first release until they discontinued. Stayed through every iteration. We were the first MS Partner on it, so we got a lot of attention from MS to help us use it. It was an excellent product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Accounting
at the time, they didn't have BizSight 365 as transparently available right after Accounting discontinued as they make it seem now. But it is still available.
That wasn't excel based at all Microsoft accounting was based off some of the Dynamics code when Microsoft first bought Dynamics.
BizSight 365 also is not a Microsoft product just an item biztechnologies sells on appsource
-
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
Sadly, no one has made/provided a QB script to run on Excel to make this product die... Damn.. I wonder how much that would be worth?
MS did, once upon a time. But it didn't make it. but seriously, it was a product that they had. And it was good.
Any links to proof of that, never heard or can find anything about such a product. I dobut they'd compete with their own Dynamics offerings. Nor would MS ever recommend anyone run their whole accounting in excel even if using a bunch of messy VB inside of it.
QB doesn't compete with Dynamix, either. At least not normally.
It was a two stage process. First MS made the QB killer app. Then when it died off, MS said that the product had no real purpose as just buying Excel and using some template at the time would do the same thing.
MS SBA Small Business Accounting, became MS Office Accounting. We used it from first release until they discontinued. Stayed through every iteration. We were the first MS Partner on it, so we got a lot of attention from MS to help us use it. It was an excellent product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office_Accounting
at the time, they didn't have BizSight 365 as transparently available right after Accounting discontinued as they make it seem now. But it is still available.
That wasn't excel based at all Microsoft accounting was based off some of the Dynamics code when Microsoft first bought Dynamics.
BizSight 365 also is not a Microsoft product just an item biztechnologies sells on appsource
That would make sense given the time, it was announced in 2005. But it was part of the Office Suite with Word, Excel, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.
Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.
Again the only costs that were mentioned was directly related to serverless. You interjected your own ideas here and made a mountain out of nothing.
Then I apologize. Their serverless offerings are good value similar to the industry and I read into what was being said inappropriately.
No it's fine, I'm not trying to be combative. I maybe could have worded things better.
-
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.
Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.
Again the only costs that were mentioned was directly related to serverless. You interjected your own ideas here and made a mountain out of nothing.
Then I apologize. Their serverless offerings are good value similar to the industry and I read into what was being said inappropriately.
No it's fine, I'm not trying to be combative. I maybe could have worded things better.
We should do a serverless seminar. It would be great to have a solid talk on real world example use cases of where regular companies would have their best chances at trying it out.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@stacksofplates said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@Dashrender said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@coliver said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@ScottyBoy said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
@flaxking said in Looking to Buy a SAN:
I've recognized an IPOD and witnessed it play out.
In the end the business decided it made more financial sense to put 200 VMs in Azure.
This is for a TV station cloud simply isn't an option to run this stuff unfortunately.
My point is that putting a bunch of VMs in Azure is a pretty expensive solution, but dealing with an IPOD ends up costing the business enough that the cost is acceptable.
The other solution is to not design an IPOD.
Exactly. Buy a correctly sized Scale box - no IPOD... sure, huge upfront cost, but who knows over the long term compared to Azure. etc etc etc.. We don't have any of the other needed information to know if going to Azure was the right move or not... but it's done, so we move on.
Literally everything is cheap compared to Azure. LOL. Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload.
Their serverless offering is on par with the rest. It's a million requests per month and 400,000 seconds of compute for free. After that it's only $0.20 per million executions and $0.000016 per second. That's not really expensive at all.
Here you used serverless pricing to say that you could use it to get the cost of Azure below having infrastructure of our own. How do we make it cheaper, if it's an additional cost rather than a replacement one? Wasn't the point of this to say that going all cloud would allow us to remove the cost of our own server? If not, what were you saying?
Nope. Never said that. I was replying to you saying "Even with all their specialty serverless whatever, never seen it cost close to what running your own would do. The cost is just so absurd per workload."
I said their serverless offering is on par with the rest. And it's cheaper than running serverless yourself if you use the free tier. You're grasping at straws here.
I was pointing out that even when you leverage serverless type stuff, because I know what it is and had already considered it, it wasn't enough to overcome all of the costs.
Responding that the serverless portion is on par with other providers is fine, but doesn't address the point that when taken together, it's not really cost competitive.
Again the only costs that were mentioned was directly related to serverless. You interjected your own ideas here and made a mountain out of nothing.
Then I apologize. Their serverless offerings are good value similar to the industry and I read into what was being said inappropriately.
No it's fine, I'm not trying to be combative. I maybe could have worded things better.
We should do a serverless seminar. It would be great to have a solid talk on real world example use cases of where regular companies would have their best chances at trying it out.
I'd definitely love to see an SMB (on the smaller side) example of that - how you deal with file shares, windows server apps, etc.
