Reply to post: Depends on your clients...

Virty servers' independence promise has been betrayed


Depends on your clients...

We do a bunch of multi-tenanted stuff (although technically all sitting under the same umbrella), one business unit in particular was notorious for having a CTO that wanted absolutely everything on an MS-or-something-else cluster (as well as dual bonded virtual NICs), with all the downsides mentioned in the article.

The really silly factor is that five nines uptime for these systems wasn't even needed (for most of the production systems we get a 3hr maintenance window each week) and yet, because of the many complexities of clustering (especially MSCS which is flaky as hell and especially-with-knobs-on misconfigured MSCS - yeah, insist on using a file share witness in another data centre and see where that gets you) uptime on the clustered systems was way, way lower and incidence of incidents was about three times as high. Elsewhere with our bog standard "here is a bog standard VM" standard we don't get bogged down and reach 99.95% availability (5mins downtime a week) without even trying.

Given the considerable management overhead this entailed the price multiplier for their VMs was much higher for this misbehaving business unit; thankfully the CTO's replacement is aware of the futility of trying to cluster something that doesn't need to be clustered on a cluster and the clusterfuck of MSCS deployments are something rapidly vanishing in the rear-view mirror.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022