Virtualization Redemption?
-
@Dashrender said:
StarWind isn't possible in this setup because of the lack of enough local storage on the two servers in the same location.
You can go virtual on top of an exiting hypervisor nodes. There's a way to obtain free license for hyper converged setup if you plan to support and maintain everything on your own. FYI.
-
@original_anvil said:
@Dashrender wut
Could you please explain that? I mean, maybe Im missing something, but I dont see why the usable capacity is the stopper here, even if we can reconfigure RAID.Why wouldn't usable capacity be the stopper for using StarWinds? Sure, he could reconfigure to RAID 6 from the RAID 10 he has now, but these are his production servers, and I'm assuming that he has a set number of IOPs that he wants and gets from the RAID 10.
He's previously stated that he's willing to take the performance hit for the DR server that will be offsite, but the local ones need to remain at the current level or above. He's designed a system that currently allows him to restart all of the VMs on a host that fails at the DR site (even more, he has the ability to spin up all servers at the main location at the DR site, though at a reduced performance rate).
-
@Dashrender well, that applies only if the production is 24/7, which hasn't been mentioned yet. Thus, if that is not so, he can do the reconfiguration afterhours. I'm pretty sure that there will be enough of time for RAID rebuild and StarWind implementation
-
@original_anvil said:
@Dashrender well, that applies only if the production is 24/7, which hasn't been mentioned yet. Thus, if that is not so, he can do the reconfiguration afterhours. I'm pretty sure that there will be enough of time for RAID rebuild and StarWind implementation
Eh? what does production hours have to do with IOPs? If the RAID 6 doesn't provide the desired normal production IOPs, then rebuilding to RAID 6 won't be viable.
-
He (me) doesn't want starwind.
-
-
How would starwind help here? if it's useful, i'm down. i just dont know enough about it to on a whim whip it up in a production environment.
-
@hubtechagain said:
How would starwind help here? if it's useful, i'm down. i just dont know enough about it to on a whim whip it up in a production environment.
Well, to that, I don't think it can. Unless you're willing to move to RAID 6 on both the local servers, or purchase more drives, you won't have enough storage to allow full storage failover between the hosts (we know that because you had to go to RAID 6 to get enough storage at the DR site).
What it could gain you - full server failure recovery on site, for free (well for more drive space or RAID 6 vs RAID 10 penalties).
-
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
-
I agree from what I know of your setup.
-
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
From an IT perspective, or a business one, we should never be "happy with" anything that isn't the best answer for our business. Things like "good enough" or "happy with" make it seem plausible that not making the best decision is "good enough", but when our job is to make a good decision, making one intentionally less than ideal is the same as failure.
If something is "good enough", in business or IT, that implies it's the best possible decision that we can make. If it is, we will be able to demonstrate that and would not have value in a phrase like "happy with". Does that make sense?
-
@scottalanmiller wtf with the two year necro...
-
@scottalanmiller said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
From an IT perspective, or a business one, we should never be "happy with" anything that isn't the best answer for our business. Things like "good enough" or "happy with" make it seem plausible that not making the best decision is "good enough", but when our job is to make a good decision, making one intentionally less than ideal is the same as failure.
If something is "good enough", in business or IT, that implies it's the best possible decision that we can make. If it is, we will be able to demonstrate that and would not have value in a phrase like "happy with". Does that make sense?
This is great in idea and utterly impractical in practice.
Not saying that we shoot for mediocrity in Leu of the best solution, but in the SMB we often have to deal with good enough because others who are in charge just don’t see it our way or they value something higher than money.
-
@dashrender said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@scottalanmiller said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
yeah, i'm happy with my current potential setup
From an IT perspective, or a business one, we should never be "happy with" anything that isn't the best answer for our business. Things like "good enough" or "happy with" make it seem plausible that not making the best decision is "good enough", but when our job is to make a good decision, making one intentionally less than ideal is the same as failure.
If something is "good enough", in business or IT, that implies it's the best possible decision that we can make. If it is, we will be able to demonstrate that and would not have value in a phrase like "happy with". Does that make sense?
This is great in idea and utterly impractical in practice.
Not saying that we shoot for mediocrity in Leu of the best solution, but in the SMB we often have to deal with good enough because others who are in charge just don’t see it our way or they value something higher than money.
That's not what that means at all. You've misunderstood the context.
-
@scottalanmiller Scott you dont live in the real world bud. I've got two servers on site, and one colo'd, hyper-v replication to the colo'd server. on site altaro VM backups, on site Data backups, AND Code42 HIPAA off site data backups.... the customer is fine. Their data is fine. I dont even know what we're talking about, but your responses usually just get me keyed up. HEY NOW
-
@hubtechagain said in Virtualization Redemption?:
@scottalanmiller Scott you dont live in the real world bud. I've got two servers on site, and one colo'd, hyper-v replication to the colo'd server. on site altaro VM backups, on site Data backups, AND Code42 HIPAA off site data backups.... the customer is fine. Their data is fine. I dont even know what we're talking about, but your responses usually just get me keyed up. HEY NOW
How do you determine that they are fine? You don't provide any reason to believe this. You can drive a car without a seatbelt and say "see, I'm fine", but we know that getting lucky isn't the same as a good decision.
In the REAL WORLD, "fine" is determined with math, not simple statements that "nothing has failed therefore it's okay." This is IT, that's never an acceptable answer. Why are they paying for two on site servers but not to have them be protected in a practical way? There are two potential problems that I don't see addressed: why are they not as protected as they could be for free and/or why are they paying so much to get so little?
Answers like "they are fine" are exactly my point, which I made above.
-
