* Posts by Trevor_Pott

6175 posts • joined 31 May 2010

Need speed? Then PCIe it is – server power without the politics

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Simple fix for southbridge bandwidth limitation

Because the company that ships the SoC decides to artificially limit the amount of RAM you can attach to their lower end (SoC) CPUs in order to make you pay for the much (much) more expensive ones if you want a usable amount of RAM.

As for the "why" of that, well...greed.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: IB tech...?

Yes and no. Infiniband was never designed to handle the kind of load that modern supercomptuers are putting on it. It was also not designed to lash together as many nodes as seems to be the requirement these days. While it is way better than Ethernet for the task, Inifniband was designed for an earlier era of supercomputer and there are some pretty big changes it would have to go through to stay relevant today.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: Just thanks for the fine article.

(Additional beer)

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Trevor PCIe won't work well outside the box...

I mind Intel owning the market a lot. Unfortunately, we've collectively lost that battle already. Intel succeeded in killing AMD in the face with a jeep, and AMD is not like to recover. ARM is a joke for server workloads.

So, okay, we lost that. Do we need more monopolists in our datacenter?

0
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Trevor PCIe won't work well outside the box...

Not at all. There are many potential successor technologies to flash and/or RAM. None of the likely candidates would appear to be the sort of thing that will affordable by the mass market. (Oh, and I am entirely aware of Crossbar).

The argument is no different than that of Nutanix versus VMware. Where should the power in the relationship rest: with the customer, or the vendor?

If you're happy to hand your genitals over to ViceCo Inc then, by all means, go buy something for where there is only one vendor. Maybe the commercial benefit you see from using that technology will be greater than the cost of licensing and implementing it. I doubt it, however.

Unless the proprietary technology is dramatically superior to the more pedestrian alternatives it won't get adopted by the mass market. Lock-in is a bitch, and value for dollar matters. This is why, despite all the problems with existing standards entities, standards (and FRAND) still matter.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Simple fix for southbridge bandwidth limitation

The limited amount of RAM you can connect to that SoC. That's what's not to like.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: PCIe? Yeurk!

Don't be so sure that paying the patents isn't cheaper than inventing it all over again. If your assertions were correct, we wouldn't have companies reinventing interconnects over and over. Sorry mate, but which you are correct that proprietary interconnects are technologically and technically superior, that does not mean they'll win.

I know that's hard for the tried and true nerds to grok, but it's true. The technologically superior option only wins when it is as easy and cheap to consume as an inferior option. Which is sort of the point of the article.

PCI-E will become the mainstream intersystem interconnect because of it's ubiquity. The ultra high end stuff where it's taxpayers' money being spend will continue to be proprietary.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: Just thanks for the fine article.

(beer)

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Simple fix for southbridge bandwidth limitation

Intel is already moving there. This is why they are soldering CPUs onto motherboards for everything but high-end workstations/gaming rigs and servers.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: PCIe won't work well outside the box...

Except it would be a future that belonged to a single vendor, who owned the RRAM patents. You're describing HP's lock-in fetishist utopia. No thanks.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: PCIe? Yeurk!

Patents.

Standards.

WIiespread adoption.

Those are the barriers. Hypertransport is faster than PCI-E as well. It hasn't won because of...

2
0

Why are enterprises being irresistibly drawn towards SSDs?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Trevor_Pott Change in Flash technology to eliminate finite write lifetime?

No, Archaon, in your non-objective, blinkered position on things you've missed the whole thrust of my argument: namely that there is no value - except in some very niche situations, including outright poverty - in recovering 10 year old drives from systems and reusing them, even if their lifespan was infinite.

Just because you can take a 32GB SSD out of some ancient system and reuse it in a newer one (with a whole metric ****pile of TLC and babying) doesn't mean it's sane, rational, profitable or otherwise a good idea. It's also something that the majority of individuals or businesses will do.

You, personally, may do it. That doesn't make it a good plan> It doesn't make it what the majority will do, would do, or even should do. And that, right there, is the whole damned point. Which you seem to be unable to grok.

1
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Trevor_Pott Change in Flash technology to eliminate finite write lifetime?

StartComponentCleanup does not prevent WinSXS from growing unchecked. It just slows the progression somewhat.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Duncan Macdonald

But that powerdown timing isn't guaranteed. Hence why data loss occurs on consumer SSDs during power out events. Thus why supercaps are a thing.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SSDs as a system partition

Again, going to have to call that pretty niche. Your average punter wouldn't know how and your average enterprise admin wouldn't bother. Few folks have the knowhow and the time to do what you do...not that isn't a good idea. :)

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Crucial is the consumer brand, Micron the enterprise brand. Crucial has a cult following thanks to their RAM. Micron has traditionally sold as an OEM to others who rebrand. That's changing, and Micron is selling more and more under the Micron brand.

But yes, overall, Crucial = consumer, Micron = enterprise. Easier than remembering which model lines are which with Intel! :)

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Micron enterprise SSDs have been amazing to me. Micron M500DC? ****ing spectacular drive. Micron P420m? Life changing.

Also up there are the Intel drives. 3500, 3700, even the 520. Anything out of that Micron/Intel fab has been extremely good to me.

To contrast, OCZ is shit, covered in shit, with added shit, layered in shit, all wrapped up in a shit sandwich. The rest all fall somewhere between, with the consumer stuff generally being shite and the enterprise stuff being pretty passable.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Duncan Macdonald

The rest of the system tends to go down between one and three seconds before the SSD. Mobo power powers the CPU, RAM and PCIe cards. It gets drained essentially instantly. Enterprise SSDs are rigorously tested to be able to finish their writes before the supercap gives out. SSDs without supercaps will NOT finish writes.

Also: not all SSDs with supercaps are the same. (Front pages versus back pages.)

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I would qualify that as electrochemical rather than mechanical. Any of a squillion electronic bits - from capacitors to volt regs - can go on either a magnetic disk or an SSD. Outside of the electronics driving the storage components themselves, SSDs have write life due to being a solid state medium, and magnetics have mechanical bits that can seize, are affected by vibration, air pressure differences, etc.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

@Duncan Macdonald

Regarding your comment "Write buffering and coalescing can be done without supercaps"

I would like to refer you to my previous comment, wherein I stated the following: "SSDs without supercaps do not all do this. Some do, some don't, and there is some debate about whether or not those that do should."

I acknowledge that write buffering and coalescing can be done without supercaps. It is the supercaps, however, that allow these operations to occur safely and thus make SSDs that implement these features fit for the enterprise.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"Supercaps are a feature of enterprise SSDs, but have FA to do with wear levelling."

I apologize for not being more explicit in my article. Supercaps - and the functionality they provide - allow write buffering and write coalescing to be handled by the drive itself, rather than relying entirely on the controller or OS. Because of the supercaps, writes can be stored in buffer on the drive until there is enough to write a full block.

SSDs without supercaps do not all do this. Some do, some don't, and there is some debate about whether or not those that do should.

So you are partly correct: supercaps do not directly have anything to do with wear leveling. What they enable is write coalescing which enables a more efficient form wear leveling than would be otherwise possible.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Trevor_Pott Change in Flash technology to eliminate finite write lifetime?

"Even taking frank ly's *Nix example as a given, I've got a machine with a pair of 30GB (not even 32GB) SSDs in RAID 1 which runs Server 2012 R2 Standard quite happily. Believe it typically sits at around 11GB free."

And I've got OS-only installs of Server 2012 R2 Standard that eat the better part of 80GB.

You *might* be able to convince me if you tried to make a case for 32GB SSDs as an ESXi disk, except that's probably useless since there are USB keys that are better fits for that job, and just plug directly onto the motherboard (or into the SATA plug).

Dragging along 32GB SSDs is an exercise more in being spectacularly cheap than anything else. I get it - I am an SMB sysadmin, we have to do this all the time . But the hassle of migrating components from system to system as everything else dies (or the system isn't worth the electricity it consumes) gets old fast.

A dirt cheap thumb drive solves the problem of a place to put a hypervisor, and the ancient SSD from the beforetimes isn't going to help me run my datacenter. It might be useful to the poorest of the poor consumers, or people in some extreme niches, but as a general rule storage devices aren't much use to general market past about 5, maybe 6 years. After that they're just too small.

A great example is the 1TB magnetic disk. I have an unlimited number of these things. I can't and won't use them. It costs me more to power up storage devices to run those drives for the next three years than it would to just go get 4TB drives. To say nothing of space, cooling, OPEX, etc.

Even if all our storage devices lasted forever, they would eventually stop being used. Just like my Zip drive. Just like my Blu-ray. Newer devices hold more, and they are less of a pain in the ASCII to use.

8
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @Trevor_Pott Change in Flash technology to eliminate finite write lifetime?

"As the root, /home, swap and /{data} partitions of my desktop computer. "

Desktop linux is pretty goddamned niche. From my original comment:

"What use is a SATA 32GB SSD today, excepting in some very niche applications?"

Funny how when you quote it you leave off the last bit.

Also: " I'm sure most people at home (a big market)" won't be using Linux on the desktop. Doubleplus when we talk about putting different directories on different drives. Sorry, mate. You're not so much in a class by yourself as homeschooling from a tree in the middle of the Yukon.

4
5
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Change in Flash technology to eliminate finite write lifetime?

A) The Al/C battery work doesn't port to silicon chips. It is unlikely we will ever see flash chips without write limits.

B) You'll sell just as many new units even if your units last forever because our demand for data is insatiable. What use is a SATA 32GB SSD today, excepting in some very niche applications? Hell, what use is a 120GB? Would you buy a 240GB for your notebook?

Flash write lives aren't being artificially suppressed. It's just physics.

9
2

SQL Server 2005 end of life is coming, run to the hills...

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"are there many companies running a business-critical instance of MSSQL Server 2005"

107 out of 135 on my list, at the moment.

"For those installs which do require high-availability, Standard Edition supports a 2-node Cluster. So the comparison with Enterprise Edition licensing (which I agree is really expensive, unless compared to Oracle) is a bit unfair."

You'd be surprised how many of the small oil and gas companies I know have run up against the need to be using enterprise. A couple of law firms too.

" Prefer to upgrade the application every 5 years with PostgreSQL, or every 10 years with Microsoft?"

Honestly, having done the math, I believe you pay less to do it the PostgreSQL way. Sure, you migrate more regularly (not a bad thing in and of itself) but you do so by spending yoru money keeping your application developer afoat instead of adding $0.00000000000000000000001 to the shareholder dividend for Microsoft.

That developer relationship will be vital to helping your company grow. Microsoft will probably try to kill your company so it can take over your entire sector.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

"I also found hard to believe that a properly coded database application running on MS SQL 2005 will break on 2012/2014"

Then you don't actually know much about the changes, especially in 2014. What was a perfectly okay application/database in 2005 will not necessarily work in the newer versions, especially 2014.

And then you go assuming things like "properly coded". Who defines proper? You? Or is "proper" simply "anything that ports seamlessly"? And what about "improper" applications/databases? You just say to folks "oh, sorry, you're fucked, too bad, should have been able to see the future, enjoy being out of business because you can't afford things"?

It's easy to simply write off individuals and companies you don't know with a dismissive wave and a haughty sense of superiority, but way down there past the end of your long nose there are thousands - if not millions - of organizations using applications with databases that absolutely will not migrate smoothly.

Sorry mate, but I've been doing these migrations now for three years, and you just flat out don't know what you're talking about.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SQL Server 2005 » 2012

@deadlockvictim

If you expect an SMB to "refactor data types" when migrating a database, you're completely insane.

Migrating to Server 2012 can indeed be a pain in the ASCII because the servers hve changed enough that 2012 doesn't support everything in exactly the same way that 2005 does. So there absolutely, 100% are databases and applications that, when moved to Server 2012, don't work without the developers changing how the app talks to the database.

That's a huge problem when you developer has not chosen to do so, is out of business, or is charging you a year's turnover for the "new version" that works with the new database.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

All mine run on Server 2008. When the database server runs on Server 2003 and does nothing but run SQL it's real easy to move it from 2003 to 2008 (or newer, if you have licenses).

It's a hell of a lot harder to move from SQL 2005 to SQL 2012. Experience says about 25% of your applications will just flat out stop working. And SQL 2014 is such a dramatic change from SQL 2005 that you can bet most of your applications are going to give up the ghost, unless the devs have been all over it.

Now, in the real world a lot of use use applications where the devs are emphatically not "all over it". Hell, I still have to babysit an application that uses frakking btrieve. That's like bashing two rocks together to make fire. Underwater. While being boiled alive.

Now, SQL 2005 --> SQL 2008 R2 should work for almost everyone and every application, assuming you have licenses.

If you need to go back to your developer and ask them to port the DB, don't get them to port it to Microsoft's latest and greatest. Just get them to port to Postgres. Later this year GPU acceleration for Postgres comes out. From experience, it's pretty fantastic. What's more the licensing costs are a lot more bearable.

If you don't think that licensing can be a bit of a pig, go take a look at the cost of two SQL 2014 enterprise 4 core licenses. (To allow for replication between two 4 core servers.) Tell me your average SMB will afford that.

Hell, for that kind of money, you can probably get your dev to port to Postgres and never worry about the licensing issues again.

Is that proper advice for the enterprise? No. But enterprises are probably not facing the same SQL 2005 issues as SMBs, and it's SMBs that are most likely still clinging to their old databases.

"Move away from SQL 2005" is not a simple, straightforward item with clear cut, universally applicable solutions, or even reasons why companies are facing the problem. It's a tangled mess of a thing and in a lot of ways it far - far - more difficult and problematic in today's datacenters than a "simple" operating system upgrade.

6
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Aye, and other than the security boogyman, I'm unsure what the benefit is for the average SQL user of upgrading. 14x faster? But what if SQL 2005 is already rediculous overkill? Sometimes it's used not because it's the most sensible DB for the use case, but because the developer didn't know how to code for anything else.

5
0

What just went down on Intel for three months? Er, PC and mobile chips

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Maladies of x86 cpu's

PCs may not gorw much from here on in, but they're going to take a hell of a long time to decline.

2
0

The VMware, Nutanix mud wrestle is hilarious, but which one is crying with fear on the inside?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Pint

Re: About owning the data center...

I've migrated from VMware to KVM. It wasn't that big a deal. If you have trouble migrating between hypervisors or data vendors, the startups will gladly help you. For cheap, too.

But you'll notice the article talks about migrating from one KVM hyperconverged solution to another, and from one VMware hyperconverged solution to another, and so forth.

If you want to pay more and get progressively less, go ahead. If you want to have no bargaining position with a vendor who controls more and more of your datacenter, go ahead. You will not be alone in your view of the world, and you are not alone in your view of the world.

But the number of individuals and companies who retain that view are diminishing. Maybe that means nothing to you today. Maybe it won't mean anything to you tomorrow. At some point, however, you might eventually notice that a rather large shift has occurred while you were refusing to look. Perhaps then you'll stop to consider what all those people know that you don't.

Cheers and beers.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Maxta is currently focusing on pushing it's reference architecture appliances through it's channel partners and downplaying the ability to install it's software on any hardware. This is because unless you are a service provider (who is used to the integration/testing work necessary to DIY) it's relatively easy to unbalance your nodes and end up with a cluster that doesn't perform adequately. Providing support to the uninitiated is costly, and - to be perfectly blunt - the overwhelming majority of users simply don't need anything but an appliance.

Disclaimer: Maxta marketing contractor.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Well, there were a lot of people who swore "virtualisation would never take off" and "cloud computing is just a fad".

*shrug*

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Trust and hyperconvergence

Not sure I can agree. First, you're lumping a lot of stuff together that doesn't belong together. vBlock/Flexpod is converged, not hyperconverged. It's a bunch of legacy crap packaged under one SKU. Pricy, pricy...and still a pain to manage.

Proximal/Pernix is server side caching. Nothing at all to do with hyperconvergence. As for the rest, well...I don't see how competition is bad.

Nutanix/SimpliVity/Scale/Maxta/what-have-you simply take away the need to worry about keeping the lights on. The infrastructure comes pre-canned and you just don't faff about.

Does it matter if one cluster is SimpliVity and the other Nutnaix? No! The interfaces are so simple - and integrated into the vendor management tools - that you don't ultimately have to care. You play one vendor against another, drive down costs, and so long as each cluster is the same vendor, you're good.

And you know what? Each hyperconverged vendor has their own specialty, so you might want different vendors, as each cluster would be better at some kinds of workloads than others. Just like with traditional infrastructure, but less faffing about wasting precious administrator time resizing LUNs.

Hyperconvergence was 5% early last year. It's predicted to be 10% early next year. ANd 30% the year after that. Both Gartner and EMC predict hyperconverged infrastructure will make up 50% of the non-object storage in a datacenter before the decade's out. Hyperconvergence isn't a fad, and it isn't going away. It's the new normal.

So that whole thing where you got paid to make sure your storage was set up right, that it worked with your servers, that you resized LUNs and so forth? Gone. Get a new job. Storage administrators are done, except for the very few who do object storage.

And that's a good thing! Storage administrators are smart folks, and it's better to retrain them for something else and get their brains working on advancing business needs instead of keeping the lights on. That's called progress.

So don't fear hyperconverged setups. Don't even fear multiple hyperconverged vendors in one datacenter. The whole point is "easy button" simplicity...and for the most part, they deliver.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Hardware vs Software

Hardware is dirt cheap. Software is not. It's easy to move between hardware platforms. Not so easy to move between software platforms. Hardware vendors have so much competition that there is no effective lock in except for mainframes.

Software, well...how much power do you trust your software vendor with? So much that you're willing to bet your whole business on them without retaining any realistic bargaining position?

If you trust them that much, go hard. I personally don't trust vendors. I thusly require that my vendkrs be relatively easily replaced, should they try shenanigans.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Nutanix - Industry Ankle Biter

Uh...what? Are you on mind-altering substances? Half the article is about how Nutanix isn't needed either.

The article isn't "don't lock in with VMware" at all. I do say "don't lock in with a company you don't trust not to screw you." I also point out that where decent competition exists, lock-in isn't impotant...you will have other vendors you can call upon.

VMware is trying to build a complete stack that controls all aspects of your datacentre. Storage, compute, networking, automation, hybrid linkage, data protection and more.

Don't buy that massive vertical integration unless you trust VMware completely. There are no full stack alternatives. What's more, once locked in to VMware's software solution for more than just basic hypervisor stuff, it's really, really hard to move away.

It's easy to move away from Nutanix. They're disposible and easily replaced. So you don't have to worry about "lock-in" from them.

If you cannot understand the difference between that and "shilling for Nutanix" you have issues.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Nutanix - Industry Ankle Biter

And? I am sure 90% of VMware's customers are worth way less than their top 5%. As it is for most companies.

*shrug*

What is it with the VMware religious types that they assume that because I think VMware needs to take the high road I am automatically 100% pro Nutanix for everything? Lotta black-and-whiters out and about.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: But

The ability to afford the software in question? VMware's great, if you aren't spending your own money. They get a whole lot less appealing when it's your budget that has to cough up the goods. And they don't really negotiate unless you're really, really large.

What's more, they seem hellbent on taking over every single aspect of the datacenter and then pushing all partners and competitors out. So, do we really want a company that likes pricing things only for the Fortune 2000 in charge of every single aspect of our datacenter?

Competition is good. Monopoly is not. VMware makes great stuff, no question...but not everyone needs it all. Who cares if your datacenter can "fly to the moon" when all you need is "commute to work"? But when the options are packaged such that they would make US cable companies blush, well...

...you start dreaming of competitors...or at least "a-la carte".

7
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Nutanix - Industry Ankle Biter

Untrue. Nutanix is making very real wins into VMware's customer base. They are not pleased with Nutanix, which is why VMware are constantly putting time and effort into thwarting them. You don't waste millions on trying to sabotage a company that doesn't matter. You don't have an entire section of your partner portal devoted to defeating a company that doesn't matter. You don't kick a company out of your conferences that doesn't matter.

What Nutanix does can be done many companies, but it takes many companies to do all that Nutanix does. More to the point, Nutanix's customers are overall more satisfied with Nutanix than they are with VMware. (With a few notable exceptions.)

So I agree wholeheartedly that Nutanix aren't the be-all end-all, but they absolutely have VMware's attention, and they absolutely are drawing a very public - and expensive - fear response.

11
0

Bell Canada pulls U-turn on super-invasive web-stalking operation

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Boycott BELL and send a clear message

If you can get Bell you should be able to get TekSavvy.

0
0

Google, Microsoft and Apple explain their tax tricks in Australia

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Which MS Product is in decline?

Windows, Windows Server, Exchange, SQL Dynamics and virtually every other product that you might consider installing on premises is considered "in decline" and "legacy" by Microsoft. Microsoft has radically altered it's sales structures such that the only way you make your quotas is to sell Microsoft's public cloud services. Based on this, Microsoft it not merely seeing a slowdown (or halt) in growth for these segments in the market, it is actively trying to reduce those product lines to zero.

You will put all your data in Microsoft's cloud, you will submit to American legal jurisdiction and you will pay subscription fees for everything, especially when you hit a downturn and can't actually afford it. There will be no more of this "owning your own infrastructure" or "stretching your purchases a few years". You will pay Microsoft what they feel is their due per endpoint and per user (for frontend and backend services) and you'll do it with a smile in your wallet, goddamn it.

2
0

VMware and Nutanix in vSphere support spat

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: No, not quite true.

Let me be clear here: if the customer has a support agreement with VMware than any VMware partner can escalate on behalf of a customer, OEM or not. In fact, I'm not even a "VMware partner", and I escalate support tickets for my clients all the time.

The support is paid for by the customer. Who is on the phone does not matter. You may have to have the customer added to the call for a minute or two to acknowledge that they are authorising you to speak on their behalf, but three-way calling is simple.

If I am allowed to do this, as a small time operator with no VMware certifications, there is no rational reason why Nutanix - which is filled with VCDXes - cannot as well.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is (always) out there ...

Restrictions (as per the release notes) change with each release. That's why it's in tehre. As for what can and can't be mixed, there is a difference between what is officially supported and what is possible. I know Nutanix is looking to increase the officially suported node admixtures, but that many of these are not fully tested enough.

Also: ask Nutanix. They will actually try to provide you the information and won't hide it. And if you ask Steve and he finds there is more up to date info than is in the Bible, he'll add it.

VMware doesn't post information about the issues with Intel 10GbE cards and various different versions of ESXI 5.0/5.5. Nor does Intel. When you ask them, they point fingers at one another, and the KBs on the topic are useless. I could find at least 50 other examples of such issues in my own lab. Yet you don't seem to mind that.

There were a whole bunch of issues with restrictions on implementation of vSphere 6's appliance, yet that's not openly stated. We had to have the community go face first into the GA and find those issues. Half of the ones I know about aren't yet in KBs and none are in the primary documentation.

VMware doesn't advertise, for example, that Flash Read Cache doesn't dynamically resize flash amounts after you move a VM, or that if you try to move a VM onto a system with all the flash committed it won't move. (And that this will affect HA!) And don't get me started on DRS.

You don't see a bunch of advertisement on the VSAN site about VSAN's lack of basic technologies like compression and deduplication. So is all that okay, while Nutanix leaving out some untested scenarios from official documentation until they are sure of the gotchas makes them bad?

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: The truth is (always) out there ...

What are you even talking about? Do you even know the feild at all? Please look up The Nutanix Bible. Amongst many, many other things. Nutanix not only makes available every stitch of information about their products, they are praised by their competitors for having some of the most complete documentation in the industry!

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

VMware doesn't do a whole lot of "selling a solution" anymore. They have places a lot of restrictions on what their sales folks can talk about, and even which VMware partner products they are allowed to discuss let alone recommend. VMware is 100% about the lockin these days. It has nothing to do with what's best for the consumer.

Nutanix, at least, is willing to sit down with the customer and have an honest conversation about customer needs. That this is having more and more customers decide they don't need VMware is perfectly fine. Not because I have a beef with VMware, or love Nutanix, but because customer needs are what matter. Not vendor needs.

The vendors can go to hell. All of them. Even though they are the ones paying my salary, I'll say loud and say it proud: the customer comes first, the customer comes last, and the customer is everything in between.

0
0

Pure Storage preps for IPO: report

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: What does Pure look like after IPO???

You have not actually provided evidence. Which features, exactly, are missing? Why does this make Pure unusable in the enterprise? On what basis do you assert that this applies to all customers?

Again: proof or no true Scotsman.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: What does Pure look like after IPO???

"f you look at what Pure is actually selling, it's not really ready for the enterprise, and anyone worth their salt knows it--including their employees."

Proof or No True Scotsman.

0
2

Nutanix looking for a way to burst VMware's bubble

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Open HCI coming out of stealth

Can't speak to the UK. You guys get shafted on almost all tech. 1$ = 1£ is nonsense, but seems to be prevalent.

And while Scale may not have made huge sense when they first came out, I think revisiting - especially if you aren't in cuckoo 1$ = 1£ land - is worth consideration. But so are organizations like XByte and Servermonkey, especially if you are state-side. It's never simple; there are so many good combinations.

Scale's usefullness is that they are "easy button" simple for SMBs. And SMBs don't always have top teir sysadmins to help them do things. If you already have a top teir sysadmin, and his time is worth nothing, then rolling your own makes sense.

Up past the midmarket, does Scale make sense? I don't know. They don't have too many really high end configurations. They have some decent mid-range stuff now, but no high end stuff.

I live and breathe DIY. Despite this, I am really starting to come around to the whole idea of appliances. Companies don't make money resizing LUNs. So I am really falling in love with organisations that provide infrastructure appliances, so that I can stop fretting about keeping the lights on and start using the technology to hand.

But that's probably just because I'm old and cranky and no longer have the enthusiasm for this sort of thing. When you've fixed a thousand printers and debugged a debunked the iSCSI microbursting myth a few hundred times it all seems so...boring...to roll your own. And I question constantly if my time isn't better spend doing practically anything else.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Open HCI coming out of stealth

I am not remotely sure that I understand. Scale is very easily better bang-for-buck than Dell, HP and EMC. Especially when you factor in the cost of the sysadmin time to set up and baby those devices. But then you switch from talking about TCO and start saying Scale is voodoo. So which was it that drove you away?

It sounds to me a bit like you took a cursory look, but it sounds to me like you either took a cursory look whilst hoping for a reson to discredit, or you were hoping for cheaper hardware than Dell/HP/EMC and were trying to compare hardware to hardware without factoring in the cost of any licensing on the Dell/HP/EMC side.

A 3 node HC1000 should be between 20k and 30k. That's between $6.7k and $10k per node for storage, compute, hypervisor, management tools and integration services. That's not the best price I've seen for 32GB/node, but going up a level to the dual CPU nodes that come with more RAM and can be upgraded doesn't bump the cost/node by much. In both cases they end up far cheaper than storage + compute + hypervisor + management tools + integration services from pretty much any place I've seen that demanded more than Synology for the back end storage.

0
0

PATRIOT Act axed, NSA spying halted ... wake up, Neo, it's just a dream in the US House of Reps

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: I'm skeptical that this bill will pass, but...

Uh, hell yes conservatives be way the fuck more crazy than me. Also: the more you, personally, dislike and distrust a news source, the more I know it must be accurate!

1
0

Forums