Leapfrogging competition with virtualisation

[w1z4rd]

Hmm just a bit confused,requiring a dns update with 0 virtualization would mean a tertiary (mirrored) server being available anyway as no backup restoration is instant? In which case you invested in the same amount of hardware,but just complicating the setup

I have two servers, yup more expensive, but those servers cant go down. Theyre too important.

Have you ever tried Virtualization and gotten burnt or are you just stubbornly certain that a technology being supported by even desktop PCs will die a silent death

The "oh you must have being touched by a priest to have so much hate for religion" argument. They teach you that at virtulization school? Clearly the sales guy got to you well. I just hope your hardware doesnt collapse as you are going to be recovering multiple servers at the same time. Shu, my clients cant afford to have so many services down at the same time. You are so lucky to have such undemanding clients

How much did your virtulization cost you btw? Or did you at least use enough commonsense to use a FOSS solution?

 

[PsyWulf]

I have two servers, yup more expensive, but those servers cant go down. Theyre too important.

If they are that critical any good Support vendor would recommend virtualization or even a 3rd server. Are these servers from different vendors with differently aged drives? Drives from the same batches can fail simultaneously giving you all kinds of hell to get it back up.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/diary_of_a_server_failure/

The "oh you must have being touched by a priest to have so much hate for religion" argument.

People who are averse to anything that could possibly make their work easier tend to be stubborn due to historic issues,if you hear hoofbeats think horses. Any sysadmin worth his salt tries any technology to make his maintenance easier and more resilient

How much did your virtulization cost you btw? Or did you at least use enough commonsense to use a FOSS solution?

Nothing more than the cost of the 2 Physical servers and the free hypervisor

 

[w1z4rd]

If they are that critical any good Support vendor would recommend virtualization or even a 3rd server.

LOL, no one worth their salt would recommend virtulization for these servers. LOL. Just cause you and a couple of other "sme" supporters bought into virtulization doesnt mean that its really that accepted. Sorry to burst that bubble. We actually do have a 3rd server, but its not a redundant failover like the other mirror. Its just a place I store incremental backups.

Are these servers from different vendors with differently aged drives? Drives from the same batches can fail simultaneously giving you all kinds of hell to get it back up.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/diary_of_a_server_failure/

Completely unrelated hardware and networks Thats the beauty of my solution

People who are averse to anything that could possibly make their work easier tend to be stubborn due to historic issues,if you hear hoofbeats think horses. Any sysadmin worth his salt tries any technology to make his maintenance easier and more resilient

Ive tried them all. Heck, I used virtulization to run windows in on my linux desktop. As I dont want to run a windows desktop. For those few times I have to run a windows application for testing or something. Your reasoning failed right there if you were assuming I had not tried it. I try it out about once a year.

Nothing more than the cost of the 2 Physical servers and the free hypervisor

So what was the costing? Which vendor was able to sell you that?


On a side note, do you want to buy some power balance bracelets? They really do work

 

[unskinnybob]

Lets hope that hardware you are over working does not crash

One of the biggest motivators for consolidating tin is UNDER utilization. If you do a proper study of hardware utilization before consolidating server load, no problems in the strain department. Planning, as with anything IT, is the key.

 

[w1z4rd]

One of the biggest motivators for consolidating tin is UNDER utilization. If you do a proper study of hardware utilization before consolidating server load, no problems in the strain department. Planning, as with anything IT, is the key.

Like planning on the right amount of server utilization in the first place So you dont need to consolidate, but I get your point

 

[PsyWulf]

LOL, no one worth their salt would recommend virtulization for these servers. LOL. Just cause you and a couple of other "sme" supporters bought into virtulization doesnt mean that its really that accepted. Sorry to burst that bubble. We actually do have a 3rd server, but its not a redundant failover like the other mirror. Its just a place I store incremental backups.

Yet to see any reason to _not_ virtualize from you,all this conjecture and contrived arguments aren't really making your averse reaction to virtualization any more sensical. You way > the hiway is not a valid argument. Even IF ( and I do say that IF tentatively ) your setup is so unique that virtualization would cripple the setup,it doesn't suddenly invalidate the 99.9% of companies that decide to go virtual decisions? If you could be so kind as to show a free option to restore fully functioning server backups to development/backup servers servers in 2-3 clicks even I might have given this further consideration rather than reading repeated attempts to reinforce the notion that "my solution > *"

Completely unrelated hardware and networks Thats the beauty of my solution

Non-virtualized Windows backup restoration to dissimilar hardware is not something I want to wake up to do

Ive tried them all. Heck, I used virtulization to run windows in on my linux desktop. As I dont want to run a windows desktop. For those few times I have to run a windows application for testing or something. Your reasoning failed right there if you were assuming I had not tried it.

Wow a desktop virtualization! Yeah you clearly are up to speed with it.

So what was the costing? Which vendor was able to sell you that?

Standard HP and Dell servers,no custom hardware required

On a side note, do you want to buy some power balance bracelets? They really do work

Next you'll be selling me tarot readings? or better yet,consultations on non-virtualized-workgroups-for-dummies

 

[w1z4rd]

Yet to see any reason to _not_ virtualize from you,all this conjecture and contrived arguments aren't really making your averse reaction to virtualization any more sensical. You way > the hiway is not a valid argument. Even IF ( and I do say that IF tentatively ) your setup is so unique that virtualization would cripple the setup,it doesn't suddenly invalidate the 99.9% of companies that decide to go virtual decisions? If you could be so kind as to show a free option to restore fully functioning server backups to development/backup servers servers in 2-3 clicks even I might have given this further consideration rather than reading repeated attempts to reinforce the notion that "my solution > *"


Non-virtualized Windows backup restoration to dissimilar hardware is not something I want to wake up to do



Wow a desktop virtualization! Yeah you clearly are up to speed with it.


Standard HP and Dell servers,no custom hardware required



Next you'll be selling me tarot readings? or better yet,consultations on non-virtualized-workgroups-for-dummies

Lol, now ure just making up bull****. LOL. 99% of companies use virtulization.

Unfortunately I cant offer you 1 and 2 click solutions. The systems I work with are more complicated and not designed for people who dont really know what they are doing. Keep with your current solution, based on what I have read we should be lucky that you got anything working.

Cheers.

 

[PsyWulf]

Lol, now ure just making up bull****. LOL. 99% of companies use virtulization. Lie much?

Do try to read again,

99.9% of companies that _do_ use virtualization are likely _not_ to use the software setup you require that is impossible to virtualize

 

[PsyWulf]

Lol, now ure just making up bull****. LOL. 99% of companies use virtulization.

Unfortunately I cant offer you 1 and 2 click solutions. The systems I work with are more complicated and not designed for people who dont really know what they are doing. Keep with your current solution, based on what I have read we should be lucky that you got anything working.

Cheers.

Typical,instead of responding to the actual discussion you'll cower behind misreading and then use underhanded insults. Run along troll,your input is no longer required

 

[w1z4rd]

Typical,instead of responding to the actual discussion you'll cower behind misreading and then use underhanded insults. Run along troll,your input is no longer required

I love how dishonest you are. First you imply that I got "hurt/molested" by virtulization cause I wont suck your penis over it, and then you imply that I dont know what I am doing because I wont suck your penis over virtulization. Yet IM the troll because I respond back in kind? Yeah you really do create your own reality.

I didnt respond because I just have an IT job thats not "1 or 2 clicks". Sorry, dont have time to feed the troll now. Will it make you feel better if I said, "yeah ZOMG virtulization rocks like steve jobs on an iphone"111111111!!!! Are you able to understand that? I tried to word it for someone as pro as you with your SME networks.

 

[hammell]

Relax guys. It's just an article about virtualization. If you don't want to use it I believe it's your loss. You differ. Big deal.

 

[unskinnybob]

Like planning on the right amount of server utilization in the first place So you dont need to consolidate, but I get your point

Problem is, with a lot of MS tech, you can't run certain pieces of software together on the same server. You could try to stick as many server roles as possible on every piece of hardware you have but at the expense of best practise (or any reasonable practise) as well as increase your risk because losing a single server affects a whack of services. By virtualising you keep specific roles to specific servers while achieving a better hardware utilization. The benefit and business case for virtualization in the the Wintel environment is real.