True if you have the applications that are compatible with containers. But if you run "old-school" applications or legacy software, you really want the isolation that comes with VMs. Like always, there's no solution which satisfies everyone's needs. There's a place for both containers as well as VMs.
35 posts • joined 27 Sep 2012
Re: These days.....
I'm not sold on SCVMM myself, it's not rocket science, but the GUI of SCVMM really needs some work. Even MVPs have been complaining about it.
For Dynamic Optimization System Center Operations Manager is required. And still it isn't the equivalent of the DRS functionality.
Distributed Power Management in VMware offers the option to put hosts in Standby mode, which isn't something I've seen in Hyper-V, if I missed something there, please tell me.
Good example to show to management
This article should be required reading for a lot of managers. The costs of power and cooling are relatively high compared to the costs of hardware, which is something that not a lot of less technical people understand, but is clearly laid out in your example. Also, cloud being not that cheap, when running legacy loads, is something that I knew (I even know examples of companies moving workloads back), but a load of managers are blinded by all the cloud hype.
Re: Old news.
Ha and why do they let those pick-up trucks and SUVs get by with horrible fuel efficiencies and emission stats? Because they're important for GM. This case stinks with the harsh treatment of a foreign company. Everyone has forgotten about the misdeeds of GM and they got off with a paltry fine.
Re: A few things are needed to make Office great again
I've heard from consultants that using Office 2013 uses so much more resources, that you have to reduce the number of clients on a Remote Desktop environment with as much as 25%. I'm wondering what the verdict is on the latest Office version.
Re: I am not sure of the law in various parts of the world where microsoft operate
Have you ever heard of the WinSxS directory? I reclaimed 10+GB of disk space by cleaning that one up. That took about 30 minutes after the next boot which was quite annoying. Also, your profile and Programdata seem to grow in incredible ways as well. Now of course I can do a reinstall of my OS, but I really don't want to go through all that trouble.
Re: Escalate beyond the hosts file?
This works if your PC is only running at your home network. I'm taking my work laptop to different locations (on-site training and so on) and then these measures become way more important.
Re: And the upshot is...
It depends; I've been playing around with PowerShell recently and I found it lacking from time to time. For something relatively easy; changing ownership of directories (cacls for the win), I needed a third party module to enable performing such an action. The actual setting worked, but in a real environment you're not just allowed to run unknown 3rd party code.
It's quite powerful and way better than what you could do with VBScript, but it has taken quite a lot of time. In earlier versions of Windows (before 8.1/2012R2) it was still lacking easy access to a lot of functionality. to be honest; I became a PowerShell fan, because it worked wonders in the vSphere environment (PowerCLI), from there I looked at what you could do with it in Windows itself.
The problem I have with these developments, is that less-savvy computer users cannot even browse well-known web sites without getting targeted by this type of malware. Why don't the owners of these web sites actually do something about this?
Re: 9 years ago never thought I would say this
From ESXi 5.5 u2 onwards, the "old" client (you must explicitly download the 5.5u2 client) can still manage VM settings, even for virtual hardware 9 or 10 (or in 6: version 11). The only things that don't work are the new settings from version 5.1 onwards, but these are not used often.
I totally agree. We used to offer virtual desktops (Horizon View), when delivering training on-site or on different locations, but officially, you need to pay up for each separate physical desktop that connects to a virtual desktop. Let's say you use the same desktops at three different locations, you have to pay 3 times the cost of a desktop. This is simply stupid and it totally kills any reason to offer desktops this way.
Re: It's OK
As far as I know, the problem is exponential; 2 times the weight is 4 times the wear on the road. Someone, familiar with the local politics, explained that was the reason they blocked a specific road for non-locals. Given the amount of heavy traffic, it would sustain a lot of damage, since the road wasn't made for that amount and weight of traffic.
There's also weight limitations in the Netherlands for trucks, but that has a second reason; inertia. Stopping a truck which has 70 tons of load (metric) is a big challenge and so there are limitations on that kind of thing as well.
Re: Drugs for morning sickness...
That's the first thing that come up for me as well. Interestingly, the non-teratogenic isomer of thalidomide seems to have some uses nowadays.
As to the whole Kim thing; I read something about a TV host who couldn't stomach having to "report" about those creatures anymore and walked off-stage. Now if everyone would do that, the world would become a better place.
Re: Don't they have accountants in Japan?
I agree with your take on the pressure exerted on companies by the financials and stock exchange. I recently had a student from a big international IT firm and he told me that it's completely insane. The company in question makes nice profits, but if the profits are not according to expectations, then all hell breaks lose.
To get the stock from dropping, measures are being taken, like randomly cutting personnel (which has proven to be a bad idea, they go about that differently now) and cost cutting taken to extremes (like revoking expenses for a conference which was already paid for). If you really think deeper on this, it almost becomes terrifying. Instead of just boringly delivering a good product and decent profits, companies are partially driven by the whims of the stock exchange and financial markets.
I think the move to go private by Dell has been a very good idea; why let yourself be vulnerable to all the stupidity, driving the current markets, and prevent yourself from just executing a longer term strategy?
RSAT is useful, but it introduces a nasty OS dependancy. You must use an up-to-date client OS otherwise you can't manage the latest and greatest MS OS. There was a lot of frustration coming from admins when the RSAT tools for Windows 2012 only worked on Windows 8. Now if you would have some sort of tool which can be installed on any OS to manage your environment, then it would make sense.
PowerShell is useful as well, but as in your example, it's not that friendly and you have caveats popping up left and right. I came across a problem with Windows 2012R2 core; I wanted to add a Windows feature and had to point to a full GUI image on the installation medium as a source. That was a feature.
Pricing is the main issue
I've been talking to my students, some of which are consultants, and they unanimously noted that vSAN is too expensive from a licensing point of view. EVO:RAIL is even more expensive so it seems, so there you have it.
It's not bad at all, but a no-go at the current price level.
It's the military-industrial complex
I think this just shows that it's only about filling the pockets of the military-industrial complex. There's not even a hint of trying to come up with something that just works.
On top of that, what's the actual use of an "advanced" fighter plane? As other people have noted, what you actually need in this day and age is something that is relatively cheap, sturdy and can deliver ordnance effectively. The A-10 Warthog is just such a plane, but the Top Gun loving Air Force really hates it.
Odd, I thought that CCl4 was pretty much off-limits in the industry because is it is very carcinogenic. I do remember a chemistry professor mourning that he couldn't use it anymore as a solvent for reactions involving radicals, which it is very well suited for.
I didn't know that it is bad for the ozone layer as well. If Chinese companies use it on a large scale for whatever reason, I'd really not like to be anywhere near them.
Re: Revenue generator
Very true, back from the start it was all about the money. It's the combination of certification and training which can be quite profitable.
What vendors seem to forget, is that you need properly trained people to get your products to work in the marketplace to begin with. That should be the driving force and not making money, but I guess this will never come true.
The whole ITIL and PRINCE2 thing is something I've never understood to be honest. My guess is that it's really popular in large, rigid, top-heavy (as in too many managers, red tape) IT organizations. The problem with both is that they try so hard to be risk averse, that you create a very static environment, which is almost violently opposed to changes.
MCA and MCM had poor ROI, certification in general
Well, what they don't tell, is that you didn't get enough ROI on getting a master certification. Since it was rather costly, but only valid on a specific version of a product (Say: Exchange 2007), you would have to go through it again and again. Add to that, the fact that the added value of this certification wasn't properly acknowledged in the marketplace, so it's no wonder people were not lining up for it.
As to the regular certifications, I think any IT professional should be aware of the fact that just having passed exams doesn't say a lot. There's a lot of web sites out there which "offer" exact copies of the live exams so the only skill you need is memorization. I've known someone who passed the Exchange 5.5 exam without having seen the product! On the other hand, a lot of IT professionals are required to pass exams for their employer and experience can/will work against you sometimes, so here the vendor creates a problem for themselves.
I agree with exams reflecting real life scenarios and actual understanding of the topics involved. Unfortunately, vendors tend to use it to push certain technologies/features or stupid memorization of facts. Also, there's a definite lack of teaching the basics. In the early days you were supposed to pass the Networking Essentials and TCP/IP courses; which proved to be invaluable many years on. Now that's taken as a given, although I see some changes in the course ware come up lately.
The PowerShell hype is getting to me a bit as well, it's all over the course ware for one of the Win2012R2 courses (20410) and I think that's overdoing it. In a recent VMware exam they showed how it should be done; you had to fix an existing script instead of writing one from scratch; now that shows that you understand what you're doing.
Re: Those treaties typically don't benefit democracies
You're very right about this one. The sheer arrogance of the US in enforcing "trade agreements" which effectively mean "give up all your rights for our big corporations" is stunning. The secrecy surrounding this agreement says it all. It's appalling that the mainstream media isn't calling out the US on this treaty. We're effectively throwing away our rights and granting them to corporations.
Something as simple as banning smoking advertisements can get you into court with the tobacco industry. Also coming up is a try by the big pharmaceutical companies to drive up prices of medicines (getting them at the same level as the US) and even increasing patents concerning healthcare.
Why even bother calling it a trade agreement?
A link (http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2014/04/new-obama-administration-report-targets-tpp-countries-public-interest-policies-as-trade-barriers-to-.html) containing some actual recommendations for countries like Malaysia and Japan, was so gross and so insensitive to those countries' sovereignty, that it was almost laughable.
Is the US completely out of it's mind? Any sane politician wouldn't sell out it's countries citizens to the corporatist regime in the US. You might as well let the US (it's corporations that is) take over your country, there's not a lot of difference.
What really bothers me about all this, is the fact that mainstream media is completely ignoring what's going on and the implications of the measures in this so-called trade agreement. They should be screaming murder over this. Also, why does the US still think it can force it's stupid policies on any other country in the world?
Re: What a load of developer old tosh
Totally agree here. I'm supporting my mother, who has only recently started using a PC. She acknowledged that you cannot go without one any more, so we try to support her as best as we can. This really changes the way you look at this. Whereas we, as experienced users, can relatively easily find our way, there's a lot of stuff which is simply illogical, or even stupid, and trying to look at it from an inexperienced person's point of view is something more people should do.
Re: VW Badge
No, the Beastie Boys are opposed to any sort of commercial use of their songs. That's something the offending company could/should have known from the start. Note that this type of thing is a matter of principle; lots of bands earn money by having commercials use their songs.
Now, Goldieblox took things one step further, by pre-emptively suing the original artist. With that, you've lost any semblance of sympathy in my book. The suit by the Beastie Boys points to this as being done on purpose, to generate publicity and I tend to agree. It's just showing off the company's true colors I guess.
After reading a number of articles on their "business practices" (deliberately duping their customers), which came up on several blogs recently (Naked Capitalism for example), I can only say that RBS should just die and their managers should be prosecuted.
This latest c**c-up just shows they are not even remotely interested in offering proper services to their customers. The only thing they're interested is money and they don't care about the how and why. How is it possible that they still exist given their track record?
That was already so in 5.1
There are some strong reasons to get rid of the classic client and VMware has made some functionality web client-only in version 5.1 already. The main gripe I have with the Web Client is that it uses Flash, which doesn't get much love for various reasons. Also there seems to be a lack of support in Linux for it, so the platform independence argument doesn't hold any more.
If you really hate the Web Client, you can access certain functionality using PowerCLI or another comparable tool as well.
It's probably somewhat different
I've seen some presentations and examples of content for this track some years ago and we (me and other attendants, all MCTs by the way) had the following reservations:
- 2 Weeks at Redmond for intense training (this has been dropped)
- It's ONLY valid for a specific version of the product/technology (Exchange 2010, Sharepoint 2007, SQL 2008)
Our big question mark was; is it worth the time/money and effort? Obviously people have spoken and the answer is clear; no it's not. It might be useful, but given the required investment and the fact that your efforts have to be recognized by potential customers, it doesn't make enough sense from a business perspective.
Re: At the risk of...
Now the technology may have improved, but there's lots of OLD nuclear reactors around. The Fukushima reactors were more or less end of life (reactor design from end 60s/begin 70s), but the Japanese government allowed TEPCO to keep them running for some 10+ more years.
On top of that the efficiency of current reactor types (which mostly use enriched uranium, which can also be used for nuclear weapons) isn't particularly high. There are some better options in development, like the much quoted thorium reactor, which should receive more attention. But we still have loads of old reactors around and there's NO simple and cheap option to get rid of them.
My biggest gripe is that the management of TEPCO, as well as the Japanese government, handled this disaster in a very unconvincing way. In my opinion there were some fishy things going on, long before things went wrong and the actions performed by TEPCO have not done much to actually solve the problem.
The biggest problem for nuclear is mismanagement (read: corporate greed) and sheer stupidity from a design point of view (nuclear reactor in an inappropriate location, too many reactors at one location, inappropriate designs, no way to decommission reactors safely and cheaply).
Nuclear can be a good, or even better, alternative for wind and solar, but only if we take into account these very important characteristics.
Re: Nuclear power will be a terrible loss
Agreed on that one. I haven't heard much about the progress of these new reactors in Finland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant) , but it's way over schedule both from a time and money point of view. I think that smaller, simpler units are the future. These huge designs, requiring big teams of people to even build them, prove to be unworkable/unmanagable.
Re: Why, not How?
Given the cost of SCVMM (it's NOT free), there's still an important alternative for smaller shops (up to 3 ESXi Servers, 6 sockets) which includes vCenter Server - Essentials (Plus). Note that you get lots of functionality (Replication, Backup, HA, vMotion) already with the Essentials Plus version. So VMware isn't necessarily much more expensive then Microsoft.
In general however, licensing is just one of the costs of running a platform. Just like a number of other people noted; management is something totally different. And there things might turn out to be radically different.
Also, migrating to a new version seems to be a real pain with Hyper-V, whereas it's relatively easy with VMware.
The point is that you do not necessarily need all those features. Furthermore, Hyper-V with SCVMM isn't exactly free either. If you go down that path, I'd say put everything on Linux (Xen or KVM).
On 3 ESXi Servers you can run enough VMs for the average small business and in this environment it's very easy to setup and everything just works. Hyper-V, in my opinion, still has some parts that need some polish, like Cluster Shared Volumes.
For SME's there's the Essentials or, better, the Essentials Plus license. That means 3 ESXi Servers with a vCenter to go with it for a reasonable price point. And it still has vSphere Replication, HA, vMotion, Data Protection as features.
The complexity of the product is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. If you want to use all functionality, it becomes more complex and if you use only a subset of its' features it's less complex. In my opinion it's not the VMware side of things that is difficult; it's the storage and network side of things. I'm very much in favor of the bottom-up approach (I'm talking to you MS); first design your hardware platform and only then install and configure your hypervisor.
Having a broad overview and some depth when it comes to storage and networking is key for making any virtualization solution work. In contrast, the software is relatively easy to configure.
My impression is that there's more to it then just pricing. Up until now, MS didn't have the feature set to compete with VMware. This is the usual thing; MS overpromises and underdelivers. So, in the meantime, lots of environments have already settled on VMware. It's hard to get that installed base to move away to a new and unknown platform.
What you do see is hybrid solutions, consisting of multiple hypervisors. That's the way they will slowly gain some ground. As to the actual merits of Hyper-V. It seems to run nicely, but there's no feeling of control. If something goes wrong in VMware/Xen/KVM you can grab logfiles and check out what's happening (even "real-time" with tail). In Hyper-V you're more or less locked out of advanced configuration settings and logging. That is something I'd really miss when migrating.
There are concerns about GM crops for a reason. To stimulate the expression of the added genetic material, you use promoter genes. And the big question is what these promoter genes will do to the crop or to the person or animal (GM soybeans) eating it. So some reservation is appropriate.
It's unfortunate that an extremely evil company (Monsanto) has made it nearly impossible to get some decent research and discussion possible about what we're doing here. Also the whole agricultural-political complex in general doesn't have a good reputation for a reason.
In the case of Roundup ready crops the solution is, IMHO, not dousing your crops with a herbicide, but to use other techniques (less monoculture!) or improved crops. We see the problems pop up already in the US, where resistance to Roundup has become a serious problem.
It's a bit reminiscent of the use of anti-biotics; overusing them creates selective pressure for the bacteria, which stimulates the development of resistance. So long-term this is not the way to go.
And as to the saving millions of people part; as far as I'm concerned the bigger problem to tackle is population growth, but that's a completely different discussion.