Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
-
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
No, as long as your answer includes a capacity number (in TB) no one is going to agree with the statement. There is no capacity number, large or small, that makes a SAN more or less likely.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
So *** off, all of ya. . . shit.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
So f*** off, all of ya. . . shit.
But the original thread has nothing to do with it...
-
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@DustinB3403 said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@JaredBusch said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
I never read the linked thread. Just responding to your statement here.
Oh FFS! . . .
Where is my beer. . .
But the linked thread is not relevant to your statement here that I was responding to.
FFS. . .
Would you all be happy if I said " OP is looking to downscale from a column designed network into an IPOD when he requires only 43TB of storage and 1250 IOPS"
damn. . .
You are not understanding. You claimed that size of storage is what decided the need for a SAN or not. That is what is being argued with you. It has nothing to do with anything else.
We all generally understand that at under certain host count a SAN (and the storage it can provide) makes no fucking sense at all.
Why are you guys up my ass about it today?
because you are insisting on a totally different decision factor that doesn't make sense.
Even if you only need 250GB of shared stuff, but you need to share it to enough hosts, then a SAN make sense.
Not in context of the OP, which is a 2 host 1 san solution he's looking for.
But then why state the red herring as the reason instead of the actual reason? the reason is "two hosts", nothing to do with the capacity number, but you implied that a large capacity number would make a SAN make sense, even just for one host.
-
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
-
Trying to use FreeNAS as a SAN without even knowing what a SAN is. iSCSI shared LUNs to Windows 8.1 and the files are corrupt... big surprise.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011051-iscsi-can-t-sync-real-time
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Trying to use FreeNAS as a SAN without even knowing what a SAN is. iSCSI shared LUNs to Windows 8.1 and the files are corrupt... big surprise.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011051-iscsi-can-t-sync-real-time
Failarmy should have a segment featuring this.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
-
Used a vendor salesman as a consultant, CIO is not technical and hiding behind the sales guy to make it look like he's doing his job...
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Only one UPS feeding a SAN? Yes.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Used a vendor salesman as a consultant, CIO is not technical and hiding behind the sales guy to make it look like he's doing his job...
And deleted his post...
-
@brianlittlejohn said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Used a vendor salesman as a consultant, CIO is not technical and hiding behind the sales guy to make it look like he's doing his job...
And deleted his post...
Most of how bad it is was quoted further down, though. He didn't hide anything, he just made himself stand out as not thinking through what he was asking.
-
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Seven servers and one SAN on one UPS? Instead of a single point of failure SAN, seven stand alone servers, no shared storage with two UPS would have provided a lot more protection
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Only one UPS feeding a SAN? Yes.
This assumes the SAN had multiple power cables.
But he was a complete fool destroying his backups TO make a change like this.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@Dashrender said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
@scottalanmiller said in Burned by Eschewing Best Practices:
Had a SAN, but thought it was a NAS. Didn't have power protection. IPOD in a non-profit. Now his VMs are corrupt.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2011246-issues-controlling-vms-following-power-failure-to-nas
So his ups failing counts as not having power protection?
Seven servers and one SAN on one UPS? Instead of a single point of failure SAN, seven stand alone servers, no shared storage with two UPS would have provided a lot more protection
Lol of course
