You may have a lot of bottlenecks that overlap one another. Moving backup files during day hours is one of the list that caught my eye.
Maybe your best bet is getting a better switch? Slow sql server systems may be that the server is not configured properly for what you are doing. You stated that you have other SW on same boxes are they slow as well? You might download the SSMS for express here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/confirmation.aspx?id=29062 That is for version 2012. I had to get it this morning for one of our plant servers. On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Ken Dibble <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you. > > I can't use cloud services because most of the data on the network are > subject to HIPAA requirements. HIPAA compliance requires specific > agreements with cloud vendors that render them legally and specifically > liable for the confidentiality of the data, and those agreements ratchet > costs waaaaay up. > > Not to mention the fact that I would never turn over control of my data to > someone to whom I would then have to pay a monthly fee to access. > > I would also guess that if I did this my 25 Mbps internet connection would > be inadequate. > > As for budget, one of the things I'm trying to understand is what would be > a reasonable cost to address all of my concerns and issues. Naturally, I > have a well-functioning system right now, and I would not spend ANY money > to replace it unless I am convinced that there would be great advantages to > doing so. > > Ken > > > I don't see a mention about budget. If you have a large (not small) budget >> I would first give your information below to rackspace (I did that many >> years ago and I am very happy with the performance, support and cost) >> >> Also, I would check into amazon, M$, Google, etc, other large name cloud >> providers that I have no experience with. >> >> If you can find a solution that satisfies your risk tolerance, I would >> put all of this in the cloud, (different cloud servers, maybe from >> different vendors) except I would have a local backup, copied to DVD on a >> regular basis. The reason I like DVD is because any computer can read them >> and it is easy to pull a file(s) out of a zipped file if you need to check >> something offline. They don't take up much room. We have more than 12 years >> of weekly backups on DVD which is as close to permanent as you can get for >> 12 cents each. >> >> On 4/13/2016 6:56 AM, Ken Dibble wrote: >> >>> Have any of you had experience working with (rather) large virtualized >>> networks? >>> >>> It's been suggested that I virtualize my network. To me the advantages >>> are not clear but the risks are. Since I am old-school and highly >>> risk-averse when it comes to computer technology, I need to hear different >>> perspectives from people who are not trying to sell me anything. >>> >>> We have 7 servers that are candidates for virtualization on a single >>> hypervisor. >>> >>> - Domain controller (currently Linux but may be replaced with Windows) >>> - Heavily used Linux file server that includes two VFP databases and >>> serves up a large and growing number of network shares on which many users >>> depend heavily >>> - Lightly used Windows Medicaid billing server running software that is >>> very slow and requires maximum throughput/speed >>> - Lightly used Windows Accounting server that is running software that >>> is very slow and requires maximum throughput/speed >>> - Windows RDP server that has about 15 authorized users; there's slow >>> growth on this, and it runs separate instances of my VFP application for >>> some of those users. >>> - Windows Document management server >>> - Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Antivirus server (not a Windows server OS) >>> >>> The Accounting and Medicaid boxes both have SQL Server Express >>> databases, and there is client software on the workstations that access it, >>> but the servers also have additional software installed as well. So it does >>> not appear to me that this is either fully fat client-thin server or fully >>> server-hosted software. >>> >>> The network has about 130 workstations, connected through four gigabit >>> switches, and there is moderate growth on that. We have a 25 Mbps >>> synchronous internet connection and it is heavily used by many >>> workstations. There are only a couple of network printers; most people have >>> desktop printers. >>> >>> There is a VoIP phone server on a separate physical network but which is >>> connected to the computer network for remote-access purposes and to enable >>> use of "switchboard" software on a few workstations. >>> >>> There are two other servers on the network that are not candidates for >>> virtualization: >>> >>> - Fax server; has legacy dedicated hardware >>> - Backup server, which is almost constantly either running scripts to >>> backup and transfer data from the other servers, to itself and to a >>> removable drive, or having data fed to it from other servers. >>> >>> Total "live" data on the network servers is about 1 TB; we can expect >>> slow-to-moderate growth on that. >>> >>> The risks it seems to me are: >>> >>> 1. Fail-over: If the hypervisor goes down, nobody, but nobody, can do >>> any work. Therefore I need a redundant mirrored system on a separate box, >>> and a robust mechanism to continuously mirror the data without affecting >>> performance. Is that really possible? >>> >>> 2. What is going to be the real, day-to-day effect of using a >>> virtualized RDP server in a stack of other virtualized servers, some of >>> which have heavy intranet traffic? I do not want to be in a situation where >>> I'm told there are no worries and then, this system is installed, and the >>> thing is dog-slow. >>> >>> 3. In fact, I don't want that to happen in relation to any of the >>> applications we are using. What is a realistic expectation on this? >>> >>> If the reality is that I will be assuming greater risks than I face now >>> with separate physical servers, and those risks cannot be mitigated >>> effectively, then are there any countervailing advantages to virtualization >>> that would be great enough to justify making this change? >>> >>> Thanks to all for the benefit of your experience. >>> >>> Ken Dibble >>> www.stic-cil.org >>> >>> >>> >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAJidMYLn8L__VrjQJ02cf=_832jvrid3zerm-kncdszzdua...@mail.gmail.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
