|
Thanks Ants posted:Edit: IPv6 at loving last Is that really that big of deal? Sure, F500s might need it but as a semi-networking pro it's not on the top of my project list.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
 No more working under the grumpy naysayer senior admin childishly shouting at his computer that he doesn't understand what it's showing him. Now on to being an IT Manager in a one-person department, where i can hopefully steal work from the msp on projects to keep my skills up to date while offloading the garbage busy work! Best part of the call was negotiating 7k above the initial offer, which ends up 2k above my minimum  Thanks goons for teaching me to always negotiate, otherwise you're leaving free money on the table.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
tomapot posted:I'm here and my feet are friggin killing me. I troll for swag, but only the stuff I'm interested in, I do not need any t shirts but I am trying to win a drone or surface. Yeah, I did over 17,000 steps today, haven't walked this much since we went to Disney World. I really need to start exercising, especially now I work from home. I actually want to talk to some vendors, but so many of them are for things outside of my wheelhouse. I did find it funny that Robert Half and Nigel Frank have booths setup. Hey there, your company just spent a ton of money sending you here, want a new job? Some of the cloud stuff still seems too expensive. A co-worker attended the Citrix on Azure session today, and he said the pricing was really high. It probably makes sense in a lot of situations but we're big enough that keeping it on premise makes more sense for us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Some of the cloud stuff still seems too expensive. A co-worker attended the Citrix on Azure session today, and he said the pricing was really high. It probably makes sense in a lot of situations but we're big enough that keeping it on premise makes more sense for us. For all the buzz with the  replacing On-Premises that's decades a way but it's a good secondary site or DR... It's not like you have to leave it running 24x7...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Some of the cloud stuff still seems too expensive. A co-worker attended the Citrix on Azure session today, and he said the pricing was really high. It probably makes sense in a lot of situations but we're big enough that keeping it on premise makes more sense for us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
True. We spend a poo poo ton on traditional infrastructure, and that gives us the ability to do our own DR. I'm a huge fan of what the "cloud" does for smaller companies. They don't have to drop the millions on infrastructure that we have available. Start ups can scale super quick as they need to. Rumor has we're going to be using Azure for a backup target though, and we're setting up a Netbond connection to Azure for some reason. I don't have insight into our roadmap really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:True. It's probably Public Peering for some SaaS Service.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Is that really that big of deal? It's likely more relevant to mobile app developers than to people extending their datacenters into Azure. Mobile connectivity is already heavily NATed and some providers are only giving IPv4 access via NAT64.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Now on to being an IT Manager in a one-person department 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
I was chatting with my account manager at Zones this morning and he was trying to get us connected with our new VMware rep. I told him that I've joked with our team that we should switch to Hyper-V, and he told me that knew multiple guys who actually did switch to Hyper-V and got FIRED because it was that bad. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Eh, Hyper-v was bad but its come a long way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Hyper-V is fine? We run 2x 3 node hyper-v clusters (server 2012 R2) and they're good, just under a year and no major issues. I'm sure VMWare was the pinnacle of success when it first came out and there were no issues at all, and there continue to be no issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Hyper-V (now) is actually pretty drat good. It definitely did not used to be, but I almost prefer it over VMware in a lot of ways now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I was chatting with my account manager at Zones this morning and he was trying to get us connected with our new VMware rep.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Wow, a VMware rep told you this? You don't say. Our Solarwinds rep told us that one of their customers turned up SCOM and it DELETED the whole domain!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
I've never had a problem with Hyper-V, but VMWare smokes it in like every way imaginable.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Wow, a VMware rep told you this? You don't say.  Nobody gets fired for buying IBM! [Edit: In other news, I just had an MSP sales dude tell me that someone in a similar industry, in the same city, got replaced by an MSP because he was unwilling to work with the MSP to "get things done right" in an effort to earn my business. Yes, threatening me will definitely earn my business.]
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
MF_James posted:I'm sure VMWare was the pinnacle of success when it first came out and there were no issues at all, and there continue to be no issues. Well, the problem is that they are competing with VMware now, not VMware when it first came out. It's okay for a product to have teething issues when it's first to market, but it's not great when you're trying to make up ground. Hyper-V adoption is mostly driven by licensing benefits and Azure growth, because it's not really competitive with VMware on a technical level.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I was chatting with my account manager at Zones this morning and he was trying to get us connected with our new VMware rep. It's not that bad. If you are a powershell wizard you can even get it close to vmware levels on the automation side. It's quite sufficient for the average deployment and far cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Hyper-V (now) is actually pretty drat good. It definitely did not used to be, but I almost prefer it over VMware in a lot of ways now. This hurts me to say, but I agree with you
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
At Ignite also. Pretty well organized so far. There was some confusion first day though because they had the connector bridge blocked between c and b. poo poo lunch though. So far sandwiches two days in a row. F that there is a food court in the CNN tower across the street. Mainly aiming for server 2016 stuff. They seem to be pushing in place upgrades from 2012 to 2016 hard. No mention of 08 or 03 though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Nuclearmonkee posted:It's not that bad. If you are a powershell wizard you can even get it close to vmware levels on the automation side. Now this is very key, I do NOT use hyper-v in a huge environment, we have <100 VMs split between QA and PD. I haven't heard of anyone running extremely large environments on hyper-v but it may not scale well. Can't say either way tho.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
I still run into Server '03 all the goddamn time and see "special" extended-extended support agreements.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
If you've got to buy Windows Datacenter licenses anyway you might as well look at Hyper-V
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
About 100 server 2003 here. And yes we are paying for extended support. The 4000+ 2008r2 sp1 "mission critical" servers scare me more. They eol 1/2020. No plan to upgrade yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Meydey posted:About 100 server 2003 here. And yes we are paying for extended support.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
It's to find out what they could have won
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Is your business paying to to be at Ignite, and if so, why Microsoft partner training credits. Plus we have our own travel department. ~edit~ t-shirts and squishy balls
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
we are running one server on 2003 still and will be moving it to 2016 next year. The vast majority we have are on 2012 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Like a fool, I took this management job and now my day is an endless series of interruptions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
ElGroucho posted:Like a fool, I took this management job and now my
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
mayodreams posted:I was chatting with my account manager at Zones this morning and he was trying to get us connected with our new VMware rep. hyper-v is good. It's VMM that's the giant piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
I just want to brag. I take an hour 45 for lunch everyday and go to the gym.  Edit* And I can take my lunch whenever I want.
FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
I know that Hyper-V has come a long way and is really good for some deployment types. For the record, it was my account rep with Zones not a VMware shill. I have a really good relationship with him and he doesn't bull poo poo me. I don't take everything he says as the truth, but he has some big clients and has seen some poo poo. For our deployment and needs, I am not moving from VMware at all right now. Everything works really well, and we are a Linux heavy environment so that keeps me in the VMware camp for a while longer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
MF_James posted:Now this is very key, I do NOT use hyper-v in a huge environment, we have <100 VMs split between QA and PD. I haven't heard of anyone running extremely large environments on hyper-v but it may not scale well. I'm going to be putting Hyper-V on a small environment of just a dozen or so VMs. Hyper-V is really really easy for someone that just knows windows server to come in and figure out what is going on. If you have a team supporting the solution use whatever they know best and fits your needs. In an all Windows shop I think Hyper-V with Datacenter is going to be solution at some point in the future if it's not already true.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
pixaal posted:I have a friend, who is also a goon, that worked at a school with a massive amount of VMs with High Availability with Hyper-V. Their Microsoft Rep told them he hadn't heard of anyone running anything near that large. From what I've been told it runs fine but it's a bit of a pain in the rear end to find the exact VM you are looking for with 2012R2. I'll see if I can get him to make a post or two. We even deployed some linux appliances through our hyper-v cluster, so that works fine. Also talked to another goon and supposedly Target and some other large companies run hyper-v so it can't be all that bad. I CAN see how if you had shitloads of VMs in a single cluster, it would be hard to find specific VMs, especially if a bunch are similarly named.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
I'm quite keen to test out Hyperconverged Storage Spaces Direct because we are never going to need more than 4 hosts, but it relies on getting hold of the kit to be able to do the testing with. I'll hit up our Dell rep when 2016 launches to see if they've built up a validated design that I can poke.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
There are certainly large enterprises that use Hyper-V, but it's far fewer than use VMware and that's not likely to change any time very soon. The good news for Microsoft is that the virtualization market isn't where the money is going to be, so they don't need to displace VMware there any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
MF_James posted:We even deployed some linux appliances through our hyper-v cluster, so that works fine. I've done Hyper-V deployments with a lot of large companies some with more success than others. Did a big move for ABM, they didn't love it (mostly due to pain with the migration tools rather than Hyper-V itself). Also did a pilot with a large Tier 1 backbone provider that went really well. For the production workloads they put on it immediately (Lync) it out performed their VMWare environment by quite a bit. The real driver is going to be cost as VMM improves (yes it is awful in some ways, but also really great in others once you get into the mindset for it). C levels get annoyed at paying for things they already own. Why pay for licensing for 2 hypervisors if they're both pretty much equal (each one has things they're better at) and one you're going to buy anyway for the Windows Server licensing. It becomes more enticing when you throw in some of the Azure capabilities (ASR for example).
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:03 |
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:I'm quite keen to test out Hyperconverged Storage Spaces Direct because we are never going to need more than 4 hosts, but it relies on getting hold of the kit to be able to do the testing with. This looks really cool if it works, but the backend network connectivity has me skeptical. What does it take to get RDMA fabric (RCoE) set up between three servers and a switch? For disclosure I set up a Cisco Hyperflex environment and the way everything is neatly laid together to create the converged fabric is amazing. After digging in to all of the parts, I can't imagine how a "soft" converged environment managed by Hyper-V would even work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2016 22:07
|
|