@s.hackleman said in The Price Is Right:

@scottalanmiller said in The Price Is Right:

@s.hackleman said in The Price Is Right:

2 things drive me away from a vendor faster than anything. 1. If they make it hard for me to give them money. Require a PO signed and faxed over approving the...NOPE. I will find a new solution.

Just take a CC and you are off and running!

Tried to buy a product direct from VMWare once after they bought Shavlik. So I contacted them, and tried to give them money. It took a week, and 3 faxes... yes fax after 2010. I had to write my CC number on paper and fax it to them then wait for them to email me my software. I haven't spent a dollar with them since.

Wow.

@FATeknollogee to answer your original question, I host mine on site or in colo so far, simply because the capacity already exists for any client that is using it.

If I need to recommend it to a client without infrastructure, Vultr storage node will be the first suggestion for most deployment sizes as Scott mentioned.

@NetworkNerd said in Nutanix Stock Collapsing, Executives Bailing on the Company:

I have heard time and again that Nutanix gear has a much higher price point than its competitors. I've never actually had it quoted, however. Maybe that was the VMware fan boy in me.

And performance issues.

https://www.scalecomputing.com/case_studies/toccoa-falls/

Toccoa Falls College (TFC) is a Christian educational institution that prepares its 800+ students for vocational and professional occupations. TFC offers 28 majors and 38 minors within three schools that include both on-campus and online courses. With the 4th largest incoming class in the history of the college (276 incoming freshman and transfers), the college was in need of a refresh to their virtualization infrastructure to support the growth in students as well as a plan to double the number of virtualized desktops in the coming years.

The public web server along with approximately 20 other mostly Windows-based Virtual Machines (VMs) were running on 3 VMware hosts with an HP SAN acting as shared storage. The hosts were maxed out on compute and RAM capacity and would either need to be replaced or added to with an additional host. The SAN had long been an IO bottleneck in the infrastructure, and with a virtual desktop (desktop virtualization) initiative in pilot already, it was necessary to start refreshing their infrastructure.

@TheDeepStorage said in Deploying a 2-node StarWind VSAN Free for VMware ESXi 6.5:

@hobbit666 said in Deploying a 2-node StarWind VSAN Free for VMware ESXi 6.5:

Thanks just that I might have some kit becoming available but they are all different Dell models, just wondered if the Hard Drive space/RAID matched that would be OK for a test lab,

e.g.
R610, 64GB RAM with 4x 600GB SAS
R410, 64GB RAM with 4x 600GB SAS

Sounds like it will work just fine for a test lab, anyways, once you get down to testing, DM me and I'll get you in touch with an engineer, who will review your environment to make sure everything will work perfectly.

See now I want to purchase more lab equipment to test this. . . .

@scale said in DCJ on Next Gen HCI Unlocks Potential Hybrid Cloud:

The DataCenterJournal's article on Next Gen HCI looks at where hyperconvergence is going in the future and specifically looks at how and why networking may be important in the future to be brought into the HCI fold.

So, how about adding network into that management stack of yours?

And another +1 To backup storage. That's actually what ~70-80% of our customers do with their SANs when swtiching to StarWind HCA or even VSAN.
Another interesting approach which I see less often is to use 2 existing SAN boxes as a storage capacity addition to the new HCI, with some of that storage actually mirrored between the SANs through the HCI storage virtualization layer. This is where customers can actually keep both backup and testing workloads without breaking the SANs into islands of resources.

Sarcasm makes everything better.

@coliver said in Hidden Costs in Hyperconverged Infrastructure:

@scottalanmiller said in Hidden Costs in Hyperconverged Infrastructure:

@coliver said in Hidden Costs in Hyperconverged Infrastructure:

The only one that has some merit, some being a very key word there, is the networking argument. Each individual node is going to cost slightly more depending on what type of networking the implementation requires.

In what way? What would make it cost more.

Number of ports required for this over an IPOD was the basis.

But no extra ports are needed.

Example....

3 Hosts HC Backplane: 2 Ports per host, total 6 ports
3 Hosts SAN: 2 Ports per host, total 8 ports

20 Hosts HC Backplane: 2 Ports per host. total 40 ports
20 Hosts SAN: 2 ports per host, total 42 ports.

The bigger you get the less the extra SAN ports matter, but they are always extra.