ESX Appliance?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj not as strange as it sounds at first hearing. Office 365 runs on Azure. If you want to guarantee failover even if the entire Azure ecosystem fails how do you do it? You can't fail to another HyperV cloud, there isn't one. You can't fail to a top tier VMware or KVM cloud, there isn't one. All major enterprise clouds are Xen except for Azure which is HyperV. So if you demand failover capability at a cloud level, Xen is the only game in town.
That makes sense. But isn't going with Office365 supposed to make it so you don't have to think about things like that? Doesn't that fall on MS' plate to worry about?
-
@thanksaj said:
That makes sense. But isn't going with Office365 supposed to make it so you don't have to think about things like that? Doesn't that fall on MS' plate to worry about?
Not once you are at the level where you worry about Microsoft as a company failing. The biggest corporate, military and government entities think on a different scale. They can't handle seven nines, they need ten nines. They have the fate of countries in the balance or companies the size of countries. They have to think about failover in the case of world wars and things like that. Once you are thinking that way, you can't have any one company dependency without considering what would happen if that company failed or went nuts or whatever.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
That makes sense. But isn't going with Office365 supposed to make it so you don't have to think about things like that? Doesn't that fall on MS' plate to worry about?
Not once you are at the level where you worry about Microsoft as a company failing. The biggest corporate, military and government entities think on a different scale. They can't handle seven nines, they need ten nines. They have the fate of countries in the balance or companies the size of countries. They have to think about failover in the case of world wars and things like that. Once you are thinking that way, you can't have any one company dependency without considering what would happen if that company failed or went nuts or whatever.
Yeah, fair enough.
-
I've been in meetings where we considered disaster recovery and business continuity scenarios assuming global nuclear war and the possibility of dual nuclear strikes on Singapore and what we would do assuming that that happened and the two strikes were far enough geographically apart to take out that nation's redundancy! This was an actual consideration and one that warranted millions of dollars in DR investment to protect against!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I've been in meetings where we considered disaster recovery and business continuity scenarios assuming global nuclear war and the possibility of dual nuclear strikes on Singapore and what we would do assuming that that happened and the two strikes were far enough geographically apart to take out that nation's redundancy! This was an actual consideration and one that warranted millions of dollars in DR investment to protect against!
To be perfectly honest, I think if that was the case, we as a world would have much bigger problems than a business maintaining uptime.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
All major enterprise clouds are Xen except for Azure which is HyperV.
Our cloud is on Vmware. And we got bought up because of our cloud offerings.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@scottalanmiller said:
All major enterprise clouds are Xen except for Azure which is HyperV.
Our cloud is on Vmware. And we got bought up because of our cloud offerings.
You have to consider where he works pretty high level...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You are SUPPOSED to run HyperV from SD card exactly like ESXi. It is the same best practice in both cases. You can run from disk in both cases too. The SD card is just a slow SSD in this case, so under the hood the hypervisor doesn't know the difference anyway.
No, this is not true. It has never been true. It is not a supported installation method unless it was purchased installed that way by an OEM.
Yes, it can work. Yes, there are workarounds for the native restrictions in the Hyper-V installer. It is not supported, I will not do it in production.
I do not care how many times you claim it is supposed to be that way. It is not. You can claim all the people you want to that say it is supposed to be that way. The fact is that the published documentation does not agree with you.
-
@JaredBusch said:
No, this is not true. It has never been true. It is not a supported installation method unless it was purchased installed that way by an OEM.
It's recommended my MS in SW.
-
-
@JaredBusch does have a point though. that article you linked to @scottalanmiller has
The scenario that is described in this topic is only supported for original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).
right in the top notes area.
-
You're correct. It being in that box made my eyes scan right over it.
On a technical level, it's fully supported. It's all politics that make it not supported. Unless you buy support from Microsoft (who actually does that) it's not really a factor.
-
True, but when the shit really does hit the fan I have opened 3-5 cases with MS in the past 12 years and I'd really be in a pickle if I called and they simply said - oh.. you're using a self installed flash drive install... we're sorry, please call back when you reinstall that directly on disk.
-
@Dashrender said:
True, but when the shit really does hit the fan I have opened 3-5 cases with MS in the past 12 years and I'd really be in a pickle if I called and they simply said - oh.. you're using a self installed flash drive install... we're sorry, please call back when you reinstall that directly on disk.
Really? I've never worked with a company that went to Microsoft for support before except in the Fortune 100 space and only then in very rare cases. Never seen a SMB do it.
-
I should clarify, that's for software. For hosted services, yes, cases with MS all of the time. Very different thing, though.
-
Has anyone ever actually had Microsoft pull a "we don't support that because you can't prove which person did the install" no you? I feel like we have a problem where people don't trust their vendors, yet rely on them completely and choose them based on trusting them. If Microsoft is so little trusted to provide support and we assume that they will be petty and look for any reason to refuse support (remember they only get paid if they are willing to provide support) then why would we be doing business with them in the first place?
I have never gotten this impression of Microsoft. Are people really seeing them trying to weasel out of support at every opportunity?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Really? I've never worked with a company that went to Microsoft for support before except in the Fortune 100 space and only then in very rare cases. Never seen a SMB do it.
Yes really. The first time was when I was installing MS updates around 10 years ago, the RAID driver failed and my system wouldn't boot. After 8 hours on the phone we finally had it fixed.
Another time was similar, Windows update problem, this time I was my fault, changed the wrong directory - my google-fu failed me, opened a ticket with MS and within 20 mins I was back up and running.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I have never gotten this impression of Microsoft. Are people really seeing them trying to weasel out of support at every opportunity?
No, I've never had MS weasel out of support, but then again I've only called 3-5 times as I mentioned.
-
@Dashrender said:
No, I've never had MS weasel out of support, but then again I've only called 3-5 times as I mentioned.
I just think that it is an unlikely scenario. I totally appreciate customers who have had vendors pull this crap because they make their money off of a single sale and never deal with you again and their goal is to lower their support costs by finding loopholes. Microsoft isn't that company. They want their products to work, they want their customers to be happy and they get paid to provide support.
That the installation method is officially supported for OEMs (do you qualify as an OEM if you qualify to use an OEM license? Maybe you do) and only not for non-OEMs means that as a process, it is officially supported. It's unlikely that Microsoft would be looking for excuses at all, and certainly not one where they would have to trick you into disclosing who did the install.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Has anyone ever actually had Microsoft pull a "we don't support that because you can't prove which person did the install" no you?
That is not the point. Until Microsoft changes their stance, it is not supported. That is a fact. Stating what some one recommends does not change that fact.
You (mister literal interpretation of every term) should appreciate that fact.
