This is the storage config for the server-

@Pete-S said in IOPS for SSD?:

@wrx7m said in IOPS for SSD?:

@Pete-S Thanks. This one is harder to find. Dell has several 960GB 2.5" SSD RI SAS drives on their site and the server configuration doesn't list the part numbers, but does list DWPD and TBW, but then their individual drive purchase options don't list those figures. At least, not that I have seen for this capacity.

Do you have a link?

Could be this one, but there are several that it could be on their search results.
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/accessories/apd/400-bdqr

@Pete-S Thanks. This one is harder to find. Dell has several 960GB 2.5" SSD RI SAS drives on their site and the server configuration doesn't list the part numbers, but does list DWPD and TBW, but then their individual drive purchase options don't list those figures. At least, not that I have seen for this capacity.

@black3dynamite said in Windows 10 Updates - Trigger "Update and Restart":

https://www.urtech.ca/2018/11/solved-easily-script-windows-10-to-download-install-and-restart-for-windows-updates/

USOCLIENT Documentation & Switches
https://www.urtech.ca/2018/11/usoclient-documentation-switches/

https://omgdebugging.com/2017/10/09/command-line-equivalent-of-wuauclt-in-windows-10-windows-server-2016/

Thanks. I will check these out.

@Pete-S Where did you find this matrix? I am looking for one for a 960GB RI SSD now.

@scottalanmiller said in IOPS for SSD?:

@wrx7m said in IOPS for SSD?:

Should I pursue SSDs spec'd for read?

Probably

That will be good then. The drives for Read are much less expensive.

Edit: Not considerably, but notably less expensive. about $200 cheaper and you get an additional 160GB.

@scottalanmiller said in IOPS for SSD?:

@Pete-S said in IOPS for SSD?:

BTW, do you really need "mixed use"-drives? Most people's workloads can be handled easily with "read intensive" drives.

Good point. Mixed use tends to be write heavy databases.

Well, we do have quite a few DBs, Including a SQL server that has all data replicated from our ERP system in real time. I would say that and the PRTG server see the most write. That being said, I don't think they are "traditionally" write intensive. I picked mixed-use, because the drive would be part of a RAID5 array where the workload would be mixed.

Should I pursue SSDs spec'd for read?

@Pete-S said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.

I haven't played around with VMware much. How does it work with vCenter? Does run in a VM on each hypervisor or completely separate from the hypervisors?

It is a virtual appliance. You can upgrade and migrate from an existing Windows version. You can run it on a single server.

I have been using PSWindowsUpdate for several months now, and it is great. The only exception being that if you install a feature update (1703 to 1809, or 1809 to 1903, etc), it requires the end-user or, in this case, me, to connect to the UI of the client computer and select the "Update and Restart" option. A simple restart command doesn't perform the update step, just the restart, so the update doesn't get applied.

I have tried this, as per a recent technet forum post-

Start-Process -FilePath 'C:\$WINDOWS.~BT\Sources\SetupHost.exe' -WorkingDirectory 'C:\$WINDOWS.~BT\Sources' -ArgumentList '/finalize /update'

It doesn't give an error, but the system I ran it on, doesn't do anything. Has anyone come across a command that will actually force the update and restart option?

@scottalanmiller said in City of Munich Moving to Closed Source Software:

It's like one IT guy for every eight end users!

#ITHeaven

@scottalanmiller said in City of Munich Moving to Closed Source Software:

@Dashrender said in City of Munich Moving to Closed Source Software:

@wrx7m said in City of Munich Moving to Closed Source Software:

@scottalanmiller said in City of Munich Moving to Closed Source Software:

After fifteen years, they now have entrenched Linux users. Windows and MS Office normally win because of "familiarity", not because they are easier to use.

I wonder how much of the OS is actually visible to them. I would think that they have some antiquated software that they spend all day in.

Exactly - if they could deploy that crap app via remote desktop somehow - they could likely just move to Chromebooks.

If they could... of if they would. Hard to say. They could do VDI or RDS (or XenApp.) Lots of options. And maybe they are. But where does all of that cost come from!

If they were able to do RDS... they could keep the Linux desktops now, actually. No changes needed.

It is the government, so, probably are overpaying by quite a large margin.

@scottalanmiller said in City of Munich Moving to Closed Source Software:

After fifteen years, they now have entrenched Linux users. Windows and MS Office normally win because of "familiarity", not because they are easier to use.

I wonder how much of the OS is actually visible to them. I would think that they have some antiquated software that they spend all day in.

Maybe I will play around with it after I upgrade my environment.

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.

True. But don't need a VM for that at all with Hyper-V. That's a nice feature.

That is also true. lol

... And I don't have to run a Windows server for vCenter server or upgrade manager anymore.

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.

It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.

Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.

Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.

Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.

No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.

Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.

Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)

I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.

I get it. But they really do make a decent product in Hyper-V. It's not KVM, but it's definitely functional.

When I first started virtualizing this place almost 9 years ago, Hyper-V lacked some of the features and capabilities VMware had, even in the lower tier offerings. The reason I like Hyper-V, is that over the years, it has increased its feature-set and capability enough to force VMware to respond by lowering prices, including previously paid features for "free" and even changing their pricing models to compete with Hyper-V.

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.

It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.

Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.

Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.

Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.

No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.

Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.

Yeah, but, what's wrong with that? If it does the job well and at a good price (zero.)

I am not confident in MS and its ability to keep it doing the job well. Hence, my desire to pursue other OSes.

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.

It's not horrific, but $555 per host per year is a lot of money compared to free with everyone else. So perspective. Not a ton of money on one hand, but infinitely more than the alternative.

Sorry, I really like Veeam. When Veeam starts supporting KVM at the hypervisor level, I can ditch VMware. That, or, when everything moves to the cloud.

Hyper-V is also completely free, and supported by Veeam.

Yes. But, it is also a MS product. I am gradually moving away from MS as much as I can. At least, at the server level.

No lock in at all. I'm fine with moving away from MS. But this is an independent product and won't affect your overall move away.

Right, it won't affect the VM workloads moving away, but it is still, itself, a MS product.

@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@scottalanmiller said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@wrx7m said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

@Dashrender said in Comparing Server CPU Capabilities?:

My question is - do you have actual HA because you have two servers?

No, just having 2 servers doesn't mean it is HA.

LOL - so - do you have HA? or do you just have two servers cause of the 'eggs in one basket' thinking?

I did have VCSA when that was a thing. It was discontinued and due to storage constraints, we had to move away from that. I am looking to do starwind on these though.

What are you using for the HA setup? VMWare?

I do use vmware for hypervisor and vcenter server, but doesn't starwind do HA?

They do. Or a portion of it, technically. Requires both Starwind and VMware together to make it work in that situation.

Move away from VMware and you get HA at the platform layer for free.

Hmmm. What vmware tier do you have to have for that to function?

At a minimum, Essentials Plus. Not sure if more is needed or not. Lacking basic features like HA without paying huge premiums is one of the biggest reasons to avoid VMware. Their tech is great, but all the important bits that are great are unaffordable. You don't even get support until you get to the expensive tiers!

Cool. Already have Essentials Plus. Support for 6 sockets is about a grand a year. Maybe a tiny bit more.

Edit. Just looked up the invoice for this year - $1109, includes support.

What does support mean in this case - as in you can make several support calls a year? or simply the ability to call in and pay for support when you do?

I figured $1109 would be for software maintenance - i.e. updates to new versions yearly, but no actual support - that you'd have to pay additional for (think MS Windows Server).

https://www.vmware.com/support/services/production.html
Describes the support you get.