Topics regarding Inverted Pyramids Of Doom



  • Since Scott is our resident expert on said topic, I figure here would be as good a place as any to post SW articles regarding IT people who are in a position where they are unknowingly building an IPOD.



  • Good idea, makes it far easier to discuss in one place and to point people to a list of these topics to see the discussions as often people say that they can't find anything on the subject or have never heard of it being an issue or whatever. Makes it more likely to be found and far easier to document.



  • Making a small post modification to make this into a more normal thread as the OP included what should have been a post and that is very confusing and I think keeping this from being active as a single example post was in the OP rather than just being an OP about collecting stories.



  • @DustinB3403 said:

    Hyper-V - Two Dell Servers and a Synology NAS - New Small business Network

    I'm quoting the original topic from below, as the OP has asked how to remove his post. But for the purposes of education this shouldn't be removed.

    Hey guys as I've mentioned in previous posts I am somewhat new to the Hyper-V / VM World and would like some advice on how to proceed with a new clients small business needs. This is small home based business that has only a handful of Windows 8 (soon to be Windows 10) Desktops and have bought the following:

    2 Dell PowerEdge T110 II Tower Servers with 24GB of RAM a 128GB SSD for the Boot Drive and an additional Samsung Pro SSD (eiother 256GB or 512GB) Drive as a secondary drive. Each Server has an additional Intel Pro 1000 2 Port NIC for a Total of 3 Ports each.

    They also have a Synology DS214+ that has Two 3TB Drives in it.

    This is going to be a New Windows2k12 Server install, they are looking for basic functionality of Active Directory, DNS and DHCP. The Synology NAS was bought to be used as a central storage place for the servers and a larger Synology might be added in the future.

    The servers have Windows 2k12 Server so I was thinking of doing Hyper-V and a 2k12 VM on each to do the Domain / DNS / DHCP.

    Since I am pretty new to this I am wondering what the best practices is when it comes to VMs. Should I locate them on the machines themselves or on the NAS? I have Two Switches and can do redundant paths to the NAS so the NAS itself would be a point of failure.

    With that in mind lets say that one of the Servers crashes I obviously have the second one but if the VM and VHD is on the NAS can I just start it up on the other Server?

    Oh and I saw that you can have redundant DHCP but it looks like it is either Clustered or a Split Scope? Is that true?

    The above topic also is subject to Buying Hardware before the system's been designed.



  • Here's another case of someone being in an IPOD with two ESXi host and a single SAN hosting the data.

    He is specifically looking to add two 10GB Switches to this setup to try and improve write performance.....

    Might be time that they consider rebuilding...



  • Here appears to be yet another example of an IPOD in production.

    Attempting to improve system performance by adding a 10GB switch to the mixture....



  • And not just a switch, but a single switch, no redundancy and the cheapest one that he can get!



  • I's a bit difficult with this post here. But I really think he's in an IPOD from his most recent post....



  • And another one. Looking at SAN vs VSAN but doesn't know which SAN. How could they choose the SAN route without knowing which SAN to use to make the decision?

    http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1261829-reliable-easy-to-maintain-san



  • How can these come up so often?



  • Because people automatically assume that SANs make keeping the magic smoke inside that much easier.

    When done correctly, I would argue that SANs do... but we've already been down that rabbit trail a few times, lol.

    The problem is that when a lot of business look at the cost of building a SAN they don't build in redundancy or plan for component failures or anything like that.



  • @dafyre said:

    Because people automatically assume that SANs make keeping the magic smoke inside that much easier.

    When done correctly, I would argue that SANs do... but we've already been down that rabbit trail a few times, lol.

    The problem is that when a lot of business look at the cost of building a SAN they don't build in redundancy or plan for component failures or anything like that.

    I would argue that when done correctly and there is a need, SANs do make keeping the magic smoke inside much easier.... I think the valid need thing is something most companies don't even look into.



  • @dafyre said:

    Because people automatically assume that SANs make keeping the magic smoke inside that much easier.

    When done correctly, I would argue that SANs do... but we've already been down that rabbit trail a few times, lol.

    The problem is that when a lot of business look at the cost of building a SAN they don't build in redundancy or plan for component failures or anything like that.

    Even then, they don't add value until you get to large scale. SANs never make things safer. Anything you can do with a SAN you can do safer without.



  • In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.



  • @Dashrender said:

    In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.

    Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.

    Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?

    I'm guessing age and standardization? IT hasn't really be around that long compared to the other two. While things change in Accounting and HR it takes a very long time and is usually dictated by laws of some sort.



  • @coliver said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.

    Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?

    I'm guessing age and standardization? IT hasn't really be around that long compared to the other two. While things change in Accounting and HR it takes a very long time and is usually dictated by laws of some sort.

    Maybe, but IT has that same level of age and standardization around good basic architecture, as least as HR stuff, maybe not accounting. IT actually changes more slowly than those two in that area.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @coliver said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    In these scenerios Managers are consumers - they just see shiney words and say make it happen.. real IT folks aren't involved.

    Problem is, of course, a management issue. If they are willing to do this to IT, what makes them not randomly select benefits for HR or accounting practices for finance?

    I'm guessing age and standardization? IT hasn't really be around that long compared to the other two. While things change in Accounting and HR it takes a very long time and is usually dictated by laws of some sort.

    Maybe, but IT has that same level of age and standardization around good basic architecture, as least as HR stuff, maybe not accounting. IT actually changes more slowly than those two in that area.

    As far as the basics? I can see that to some extent.



  • Yeah, accounting and HR have a constantly shifting landscape of laws. IT generally does not. Good practices have been more or less established since 1964 without too much changing. Minor tweaks but the overall ideas have been pretty solid.



  • But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.

    IT rarely has that in their corner.



  • @Dashrender said:

    But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.

    IT rarely has that in their corner.

    One could say that about fiduciary responsibility in IT too, and yet they ignore that when sabotaging businesses in that department.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.

    IT rarely has that in their corner.

    One could say that about fiduciary responsibility in IT too, and yet they ignore that when sabotaging businesses in that department.

    That only matters in Public companies, right?



  • @Dashrender said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @Dashrender said:

    But the law aspect also plays a lot into the ability of those departments to not just be overrun by cowboy management.

    IT rarely has that in their corner.

    One could say that about fiduciary responsibility in IT too, and yet they ignore that when sabotaging businesses in that department.

    That only matters in Public companies, right?

    Not exactly, but basically. It is only forced by the SEC in public companies. As a private company if the owners / investors caught someone doing this they could also fire and then sue them as well. But as a private company the investors also have the right to tell the people that wasting money is just fine. In a public company you can't choose to do that unless you are a B Corp and then it is complex in other ways.



  • So the difference is basically in public companies you face the equivalent of a class action and in private ones you face a direct suit. But same risks.



  • This guy has 5 servers running only 20 vms stored on a Netgear SAN.

    http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1264839-enterprise-nas-san-and-backup-solution-question



  • @brianlittlejohn said:

    This guy has 5 servers running only 20 vms stored on a Netgear SAN.

    http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1264839-enterprise-nas-san-and-backup-solution-question

    And wasn't he considering moving to a QNAP as some sort of "solution?" He stated enterprise in the title and then went for every possible way to be as far from enterprise as you could imagine.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @brianlittlejohn said:

    This guy has 5 servers running only 20 vms stored on a Netgear SAN.

    http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1264839-enterprise-nas-san-and-backup-solution-question

    And wasn't he considering moving to a QNAP as some sort of "solution?" He stated enterprise in the title and then went for every possible way to be as far from enterprise as you could imagine.

    Yea, it had all kinds of bad written all over it.



  • And only six drives. His IPOD is only one of many problems - which is generally the case. People doing really bad things that break best practices and undermine their goals in obvious and fundamental ways often have smaller bad decisions all over the place because the processes that caused the one are often still around.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    And only six drives. His IPOD is only one of many problems - which is generally the case. People doing really bad things that break best practices and undermine their goals in obvious and fundamental ways often have smaller bad decisions all over the place because the processes that caused the one are often still around.

    he's definitely not looking at the whole package.



  • I hope that he is not looking at my whole package!


Log in to reply