February 20, 2016 at 8:49 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Interesting Data Centers
February 21, 2016 at 7:03 am
I worked for a smaller company for the past 3 years. We had everything in the backroom. I could physically touch my hardware and it was nice. When we got purchased by a bigger company, everything moved to the data center with storage virtualization.
However now, I'm looking into moving things into the so called "cloud" with either AWS or Azure. With the cool benefits I've seen with Azure just the other day, I'm thinking it may be my new home. If anyone has any good experience with it, please toss me a message. I would like to pick someone brain on the data warehousing and active directory integration.
P.S
Thanks for posting this article up Steve. It was pretty good.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/sqlcat/2016/02/06/azure-sql-data-warehouse-loading-patterns-and-strategies/[/url]
February 22, 2016 at 1:29 am
Given that there are even cloud sandboxes for most things now it does beg the question why anyone would not use cloud hosts. There are issues that may need to be addressed, however, in all but the extreme scenarios I can see resolutions to availability, data protection and environmental control (including relinquishing it!!!).
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
February 22, 2016 at 3:02 am
I do think its going to become the norm.
I see it being driven by individuals who want a consistent environment where they have predictable privileges when moving from company to company. It will be much easier for individuals to get up and running quickly when moving between companies. In some places of work it can take weeks to get access to what you need.
cloudydatablog.net
February 22, 2016 at 3:54 am
Gary Varga (2/22/2016)
Given that there are even cloud sandboxes for most things now it does beg the question why anyone would not use cloud hosts. There are issues that may need to be addressed, however, in all but the extreme scenarios I can see resolutions to availability, data protection and environmental control (including relinquishing it!!!).
Government, financial, medical data might have to stay on local servers rather than the cloud. Maybe PCI data also? I think the other scenarios could be where there's general distrust or fear of 'handing over the keys to their house' and hoping data doesn't get lost, stolen, copied or misused.
February 22, 2016 at 4:47 am
Gary Varga (2/22/2016)
Given that there are even cloud sandboxes for most things now it does beg the question why anyone would not use cloud hosts.
Bandwidth. Latency.
My current company has a mix of servers in a small server room (mostly our local file server and a few dev SQL servers and other bits and pieces. We have a hadoop server in there as well iirc) and outsourced services.
I like having the server I use nearby. It means restoring the 250GB database doesn't require shipping a drive to Ireland.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
February 22, 2016 at 5:50 am
Due to the design of one of my supported applications' license management software, I have to stand in front of the physical console in the data center to perform some admin tasks. It's a great opportunity to view up close the enormous investment required to build and operate a standards-compliant data center. We purchased a "second-hand" facility, and had to install a second chiller line to ensure redundancy. It was an eight-figure project, and very impressive.
We're not moving our core, critical financial systems to the cloud anytime soon.
February 22, 2016 at 6:13 am
The thing that comes to my mind when dealing with vendors are SLAs, including RPOs/RTOs.
With boxes sitting down the hall, I'm responsible for them and they're under my control. Any kind of off-site cedes at least part of the responsibility/control to someone else and could push recovery time to an unacceptable level, although effective HA on the vendor's part could mitigate that. Certainly something to be considered carefully when contemplating a move in that direction.
____________
Just my $0.02 from over here in the cheap seats of the peanut gallery - please adjust for inflation and/or your local currency.
February 22, 2016 at 6:22 am
GilaMonster (2/22/2016)
Gary Varga (2/22/2016)
Given that there are even cloud sandboxes for most things now it does beg the question why anyone would not use cloud hosts.Bandwidth. Latency.
This. These.
The biggest problem with share environments is the fact that you're not getting the full power of the server that you're paying for, and that your performance will be throttled for the good of the neighborhood. Which is fine if you have a nice regular load, but not when you have a sudden big job come through. I've seen performance tank because it bumped into IO limits, and all I was doing was copying a file. Fortunately it wasn't a production system...
Thomas Rushton
blog: https://thelonedba.wordpress.com
February 22, 2016 at 6:28 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/20/2016)
Comments posted to this topic are about the item <A HREF="/articles/Editorial/137780/">Interesting Data Centers</A>
As for "interesting"...
Well, a rummage through the old memory bank reminds me of:
The client whose server room was, they claimed, big enough to take the football pitch from Wembley Stadium - some seriously heavy-duty kit in there, now all obsolete, but not obsolete enough to be able to be replaced by a single mobile phone...
...and then there was the place where the servers were in a little-used corner of the building near the coffee machine (handy), except the water pipe for the coffee machine went round behind the floor-standing servers. That wasn't the worst bit. The worst bit was the mice nibbling the cables...
Then there was the server room which had a fridge full of beer in it. Happy days. Particularly as this was in the days when smoking was allowed in offices, and the office was in a country known for being a bit ... relaxed ... about what could be shmoked... 😉
Thomas Rushton
blog: https://thelonedba.wordpress.com
February 22, 2016 at 8:22 am
This reminds me of my last job which was a smallish company, they didn't want to pay for proper cooling and ventilation of the server room which happened to be right next to the main IT room. For weeks we had continuous beeping of the heat alarms(which is awesome when your desk is 10 feet away) and had to keep the door open in the hopes that would help cool it. One day I happened to walk into the server room and there was water all over the floor because apparently the AC which was in the room over had iced over and was melting.
February 22, 2016 at 9:37 am
[.. Sealand was on shaky legal ground and had no allies; it's likely all that stopped it from being attacked was its proximity to the UK. More importantly, the advantages that Sealand could provide — anonymity and security — were mostly desirable for activities that would make it extremely vulnerable. "The only content that couldn't be hosted somewhere else would be content that's illegal everywhere — meaning the nations of the world would find it quite easy to gang up on Sealand, or be willing to look the other way while someone knocked it into the sea." ..]
The problem for Sealand is that it was politically conspicuous, vulnerable, and immobile. If someone really wants to go into that type of data hosting business, they should consider something like a fleet of big rig trucks retrofitted with power generators, air conditioning, and satellite dishes. Maybe roam across the highways of Mexico in regions where "business partnerships" can be established with local authorities.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
February 22, 2016 at 10:29 am
UPS driver has access to the server room!
Years ago, I was doing a project for a mid-size company with a dedicated server room. Overall, it was reasonably organized,over head cables, alarm system, dedicated cooling, etc.
But, it also held a safe, and was used as a storage room for deliveries. So, the UPS driver had the door lock code, as did many many others. Since I was an outside consultant, I was not allowed into the room - and given that everyone else was, I was glad I did not have access. It was just an accident waiting to happen.
The more you are prepared, the less you need it.
February 22, 2016 at 11:57 am
TheFault (2/22/2016)
Gary Varga (2/22/2016)
Given that there are even cloud sandboxes for most things now it does beg the question why anyone would not use cloud hosts. There are issues that may need to be addressed, however, in all but the extreme scenarios I can see resolutions to availability, data protection and environmental control (including relinquishing it!!!).Government, financial, medical data might have to stay on local servers rather than the cloud. Maybe PCI data also? I think the other scenarios could be where there's general distrust or fear of 'handing over the keys to their house' and hoping data doesn't get lost, stolen, copied or misused.
These are certainly issues, but there are government slices of the "cloud" from Amazon, Azure, and probably other companies that separate and certify that section of their cloud infrastructure to meet needs.
February 22, 2016 at 11:58 am
GilaMonster (2/22/2016)
Gary Varga (2/22/2016)
Given that there are even cloud sandboxes for most things now it does beg the question why anyone would not use cloud hosts.Bandwidth. Latency.
My current company has a mix of servers in a small server room (mostly our local file server and a few dev SQL servers and other bits and pieces. We have a hadoop server in there as well iirc) and outsourced services.
I like having the server I use nearby. It means restoring the 250GB database doesn't require shipping a drive to Ireland.
Both concerns. I see this with mobile as well, since bandwidth isn't always there for me.
There's also the case where you have substantial investment in your own infrastructure/data center. You may move some over time, but it's not necessarily better to leave your on prem systems. I think Azure Pack is a good idea here if you want simpler management.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply