SSD's on company network? [Archive] - Beyond.ca - Car Forums

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 02:27 PM

I'm being tasked with spec'ing out some new PC's for the office, and our IT consultants are telling me that we can't use SSD's at all because they aren't compatible with our servers & network. As far as I know our entire server room was overhauled recently and is fairly new. Can anyone working in network admin tell me if there is any truth to that? Or is there a reasonable workaround? It sure would be a shame in 2016 to have to buy 100 new employee computers with HDD's haha. I can't think of a reason why using an SSD for local applications would have compatibility issues with the whole network but I don't know the server side of things as well.

codetrap

09-13-2016, 02:44 PM

LilDrunkenSmurf

09-13-2016, 02:45 PM

Not sure why an SSD would cause an incompatibility with infrastructure. He might mean the GPO can't set the SSD specific optimal settings, but the machines will still run no problem.

If possible, can you bring in a test/demo model to use for a week or so to do some testing on?

codetrap

09-13-2016, 02:46 PM

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by codetrap
Sorry, someone told you that a Solid State Drives in your workstations are not compatible with your servers and network?

Uh, no? I don't believe there is any truth to that providing your running a modern operating system.

I thought the same thing which is why I wanted to double check with some of you guys in case I was missing some technical aspect of the server side. I can't think of any reason why that would matter.

Everyone is on Windows 7 Professional 64bit. The newest computers the average employee has is 6 years old with 2 GB of RAM and there is starting to be a large number of complaints about speed haha.

jacky4566

09-13-2016, 02:54 PM

Wanna tell me what consultant that was so I can avoid them.
I am a little confused on your question though. Just to clarify, The SSD are being using in employee domain laptops right? Not directly in the servers themselves.

I can see them being cautious of SSD for reasons of MTBF but really the server has no access to the hardware level of an employee laptop.
Enterprise HDD usually have a MTBF of 2.0-2.5 Million Hours. While SDD are less than that at 1.0-1.5 MTBF.

Not comptable sounds like code for "Please only use this specific machine since its the only one we tested and support"

Seth1968

09-13-2016, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by codetrap
Uh, no? I don't believe there is any truth to that providing your running a modern operating system. And by modern I mean anything newer than Win95.

Ya, but the funny thing is, Mitsu already knows this.

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by jacky4566
Wanna tell me what consultant that was so I can avoid them.
I am a little confused on your question though. Just to clarify, The SSD are being using in employee domain laptops right? Not directly in the servers themselves.

I can see them being cautious of SSD for reasons of MTBF but really the server has no access to the hardware level of an employee laptop.
Enterprise HDD usually have a MTBF of 2.0-2.5 Million Hours. While SDD are less than that at 1.0-1.5 MTBF.

No comptable sounds like code for "Please only use this specific machine since its the only one we tested and support"

Correct, the SSD's would be in the employee workstations (Tower PC's not laptops). I have no idea what our server hardware is but I know it was overhauled within the last couple years with "high end" gear from what I am told, so who knows, but it's a safe bet that it isn't complete garbage at least.

Yeah when management told me I can't use SSD's because the IT consultant said they weren't compatible with the servers it threw up a red flag, hence my thread. Didn't sound right, but then again I don't know the server side very well so I wanted to do my due diligence.

With the industry right now we'll probably be a new company again before any SSD's fail :rofl: Samsung 850 Pros' have a 2M hour MTBF similar to enterprise HDDs which is probably overkill anyway.

Xtrema

09-13-2016, 03:01 PM

WTF?

I hate to shit on people without context, did they even give you a reason why?

I can understand from the support angle (like outfitting a bunch of Dells with SSDs after the fact may throw a wrench in support agreements) or the fact that buying cheap SSDs may increase failure risk, or in server application will create pre-mature wear and data risk.

But to say out right SSD is incompatible is retarded.

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

Yeah when management told me I can't use SSD's because the IT consultant said they weren't compatible with the servers it threw up a red flag, hence my thread. Didn't sound right, but then again I don't know the server side very well so I wanted to do my due diligence.

Again why?

Are they worry about people working too fast and causing stress to some server workload which they didn't plan for?

Zhariak

09-13-2016, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I'm being tasked with spec'ing out some new PC's for the office, and our IT consultants are telling me that we can't use SSD's at all because they aren't compatible with our servers & network. As far as I know our entire server room was overhauled recently and is fairly new. Can anyone working in network admin tell me if there is any truth to that? Or is there a reasonable workaround? It sure would be a shame in 2016 to have to buy 100 new employee computers with HDD's haha. I can't think of a reason why using an SSD for local applications would have compatibility issues with the whole network but I don't know the server side of things as well.

That's crazy man... The only time I'd recommend against using SSD's for my customers would be only two reasons:

1) The users require more space ($ to GB isn't feasible)
2) The client environment had shady power issues. (ie. Static electricity, regular surges, machines that generate magnetic fields, etc...)

Other than that, if my clients wanted SSDs and were willing to pay, I'd have no problem deploying these for both small/medium sized businesses, and enterprise customers...

Keep in mind, my recommendation only holds true for preconfigured systems that ship with SSDs. If you're doing SSD upgrades to new systems after they've been deployed, I'd avoid this due to the manpower/labor needed to reformat/reconfigure the systems.

Short Version: The servers have no idea what type of drives workstations have, all they see is a workstation accessing network resources...

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Xtrema
WTF?

I hate to shit on people without context, did they even give you a reason why?

I can understand from the support angle (like outfitting a bunch of Dells with SSDs after the fact) or the fact that buying cheap SSDs may increase cost, or in server application will create pre-mature wear and data risk.

But to say out right SSD is incompatible is retarded.

They are only here a couple times a week so I can't ask why until they come back. I think we are getting rid of them soon, hence why I was tasked with this haha.

The reason given to me was that they weren't compatible with our servers & network. I will get more clarification when they are in again. It's possible it's support related, and they just told me that assuming I knew nothing about computers.

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Zhariak

That's crazy man... The only time I'd recommend against using SSD's for my customers would be only two reasons:

1) The users require more space ($ to GB isn't feasible)
2) The client environment had shady power issues. (ie. Static electricity, regular surges, machines that generate magnetic fields, etc...)

Other than that, if my clients wanted SSDs and were willing to pay, I'd have no problem deploying these for both small/medium sized businesses, and enterprise customers...

Keep in mind, my recommendation only holds true for preconfigured systems that ship with SSDs. If you're doing SSD upgrades to new systems after they've been deployed, I'd avoid this due to the manpower/labor needed to reformat/reconfigure the systems.

Yeah it definitely seemed weird. The first thing I wanted to do with my new task was get everyone SSD's haha, I think it would solve most of the complaints. A lot of the software (along with MS Office) is local, so it should make a big difference.

I don't think anyone need more than 128 - 256 GB. My computer runs most of the software we have and I'm using 78 GB haha.

They would be brand new systems, and become the "go-to" system to purchase whenever someone needed an upgrade. We would not be simply swapping out the HDD's for SSDs.

Sounds like there isn't any reason not to go with SSD's as I suspected haha. I'll try get them to explain it more though next time I see them.

Xtrema

09-13-2016, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

They are only here a couple times a week so I can't ask why until they come back. I think we are getting rid of them soon, hence why I was tasked with this haha.

The reason given to me was that they weren't compatible with our servers & network. I will get more clarification when they are in again. It's possible it's support related, and they just told me that assuming I knew nothing about computers.

I bet that the contract they signed doesn't allow them to bill for this increase work load. If the word spread someone got SSD and is working well, everyone want them.

But if want to have less support nightmare, stick with 256GB and avoid TLC based drives.

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
They would be brand new systems, and become the "go-to" system to purchase whenever someone needed an upgrade. We would not be simply swapping out the HDD's for SSDs.

That's how I would do it, to keep warranty whole.

pheoxs

09-13-2016, 03:13 PM

Certain encryption programs do not play well with SSDs so that could be a reason. We weren't able to upgrade to SSDs at one point because our standard was an older version of Symantec endpoint encryption that didn't work with the drives.

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by pheoxs
Certain encryption programs do not play well with SSDs so that could be a reason. We weren't able to upgrade to SSDs at one point because our standard was an older version of Symantec endpoint encryption that didn't work with the drives.

We do have that....I wonder if that is what it's going to end up being. Do you know what version is the cutoff point? We seem to have version 12.1.6. I am not familiar with anything Symantec though.

Googling suggest's it's indeed a thing. I found this article:

https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.HOWTO83492.html

Zhariak

09-13-2016, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

We do have that....I wonder if that is what it's going to end up being. Do you know what version is the cutoff point? We seem to have version 12.1.6. I am not familiar with anything Symantec though.

Googling suggest's it's indeed a thing. I found this article:

https://support.symantec.com/en_US/article.HOWTO83492.html

Mitsu, he's using Endpoint Encryption. You're reference to 12.1.6 is a version for Symantec Endpoint Protection (anti-virus software). Different software, different purpose, you don't need to be concerned with that. Encryption vs Anti-Virus.

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Zhariak

Mitsu, he's using Endpoint Encryption. You're reference to 12.1.6 is a version for Symantec Endpoint Protection (anti-virus software). Different software, different purpose, you don't need to be concerned with that. Encryption vs Anti-Virus.

Told you I don't know anything about Symantec :rofl:

It appears you are correct and I misread "encryption" and "protection".

Zhariak

09-13-2016, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

Told you I don't know anything about Symantec :rofl:

It appears you are correct and I misread "encryption" and "protection".

And actually even if you were running the encryption product, it wouldn't be a show stopper :)

Lol, if you had Symantec Encryption and were running an older version that had issues with the SSDs, that would just give you another thing to yell at your IT guys at (for not maintaining and keeping your Symantec products up to date). lol :whipped:

codetrap

09-13-2016, 05:08 PM

Zhariak

09-13-2016, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by codetrap
We're running them in machines that operate the XRays and MRIs. Haven't heard of anything unusual with having to replace them more often than anywhere else..

I have Symantec v12.1.6 Endpoint Protection on my laptop since I got it and haven't had any issues with it on my SSD, full encryption and all the other big brother tools enabled. And I was near an MRI last week with it. Man, those things are loud!

Oh ya for sure, there's SSDs that are up to spec for those environments... I was just referring to the standard SSDs found in lower end typical business applications.

(A small business with shitty power, or manufacturing machines that generate EM wouldn't want to fork out the $$$ for SSDs rated for those applications such as X-Ray, MRI) :)

Mitsu3000gt

09-13-2016, 05:26 PM

Thanks again guys - will try to update when I can get a detailed explanation.

So far it sounds like it should not be an issue at all, and if there is an issue, there is likely a work-around.

revelations

09-13-2016, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I'm being tasked with spec'ing out some new PC's for the office, and our IT consultants are telling me that we can't use SSD's at all because they aren't compatible with our servers & network.

I googled this to see if there was some, obscure scenario (perhaps when SSD's first started coming out) where a workstation did not play nice in a Domain environment. Nothing even remotely close.

If youre using outside contractors for IT, sounds like they know that they would get far less work for "slow" workstations complaints if you got SSDs. Unfortunately, I see this behaviour all the time (make work) and can result in absurd statements like that.

SSDs in company laptops for eg. are more rugged, use less battery and run cooler than HDDs in my experience.

revelations

09-13-2016, 06:46 PM

01RedDX

09-13-2016, 07:34 PM

eblend

09-13-2016, 08:52 PM

Yah wtf haha, that's funny, I would love to know the reason for this. Been using SSDs for a while in multiple of the places I have worked.

Perhaps your issue is the supplier? You mentioned MRI and such.....is this a government organization? Do they have a Government Standing offer for laptops/desktops that don't have SSDs in them perhaps? I know when I worked for an agency for the Alberta government, anything on government standing offer was an easy purchase, just order and you are set, but it would be for a specific model with no customization possible, and if you want to do any customization...then a whole different process is needed, such as at least X amount of quotes ect and explanation why we can't use standing offer machines....with sign off much higher up.

At my last place we went as far as to engage with the manufacturer directly and have them get the model we wanted onto the government standing offer just so we could get them much easier.

EDIT: Just reread your initial post...my explanation above doesn't seem to apply at all anymore, unless they use that as an excuse hoping no one calls them on it.

suntan

09-13-2016, 08:59 PM

IT people thinking that SSDs get affected by magnetic fields...

Hoy vey.

codetrap

09-14-2016, 06:28 AM

Zhariak

09-14-2016, 06:59 AM

Originally posted by suntan
IT people thinking that SSDs get affected by magnetic fields...

Hoy vey.

Originally posted by codetrap
Uh, you know that shifting magnetic fields induce current right? I don't think anyone here is suggesting sticking a fridge magnet to one is a real problem. Lol

I can't remember the details, I just mentioned that because of a whitepaper I read from a major server/storage manufacturer. They released it to explain points of failure and when not to use SSDs in certain environments, unless the SSDs were rated for the specific environment.

Mitsu3000gt

09-14-2016, 09:23 AM

I asked for some detail today and these were the reasons I was given:

1) Most if not all the applications are on the servers and run over the network, not on the local PC. The PC's here are basically just boot drives.

I can see that Office is installed on my local C drive haha, but maybe that's not the case with every PC, I wouldn't know. Also I would think just the OS being installed on an SSD would make a significant difference, especially considering my computer takes approximately 5 minutes to boot.

2) They don't like SSD's because they're faster which means people will save stuff on them locally, and then they can't back up the data.

I almost rudely LOL'd. The entire company saves work exclusively on the network drives already, and probably 5 people in the entire company even know what an SSD is. I said why not have Office on the PC and have people continue to save their work on the network drives. No answer for that, then he then brought up licences for Office would be an issue (can you buy a server licence or something that eliminates the need for individual PC licences?)

3) SSD's are more expensive

A 128 GB Samsung 850 PRO drive (or 250GB non-pro) is $115, a 1TB HDD Is about $70, so I guess there is a small difference...can't imagine its significant enough to warrant staying with HDDs. If they don't want people saving stuff locally, maybe a smaller SSD instead of a 1TB HDD would be a good start :rofl:

So...I kind of felt like there wasn't really an actual reason, unless for some reason we have weird MS Office licences that don't allow local installation?

D'z Nutz

09-14-2016, 09:33 AM

I'd call these guys out. They're clearly fucking idiots.

Off topic, but does one of them drive an Veloster, and collect toys and old video games? Based on these responses, it reminds me of someone....

revelations

09-14-2016, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by suntan
IT people thinking that SSDs get affected by magnetic fields...

Hoy vey.

Um:

Flash memory uses floating gate transistors to store data, rather than the magnetic method used by hard disks. The presence of a magnetic field is not necessarily a problem for an SSD, but the rate of change of magnetic flux could cause damage:

CFs aren't magnetic media, so they can't be erased like, say, a floppy disk or a hard drive. However, depending on the strength of the magnetic field, a CF isn't completely safe. For instance, if you were to do an MRI of your CF (or any other piece of sensitive electronic circuitry, for that matter), it would be toast. It's not simply the strength of the magnetic field that matters, so much as the rate at which the field changes. If you go from strong field to no field very quickly or vice versa, then the change in magnetic flux can generate small voltages over wires, traces, etc. If the voltages are high enough, then they can cause damage. I don't know, practically, in the real world, what sources of magnetic fields might pose a danger to a CF -- or a camera -- or a lens.

Xtrema

09-14-2016, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by suntan
IT people thinking that SSDs get affected by magnetic fields...

Hoy vey.

And you shouldn't yell at spinning disk either. But you can yell at SSDs

http://www.techcult.com/yelling-hard-drive-latency/

:rofl:

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I asked for some detail today and these were the reasons I was given:

1) Most if not all the applications are on the servers and run over the network, not on the local PC. The PC's here are basically just boot drives.

I can see that Office is installed on my local C drive haha, but maybe that's not the case with every PC, I wouldn't know. Also I would think just the OS being installed on an SSD would make a significant difference, especially considering my computer takes approximately 5 minutes to boot.

2) They don't like SSD's because they're faster which means people will save stuff on them locally, and then they can't back up the data.

I almost rudely LOL'd. The entire company saves work exclusively on the network drives already, and probably 5 people in the entire company even know what an SSD is. I said why not have Office on the PC and have people continue to save their work on the network drives. No answer for that, then he then brought up licences for Office would be an issue (can you buy a server licence or something that eliminates the need for individual PC licences?)

3) SSD's are more expensive

A 128 GB Samsung 850 PRO drive (or 250GB non-pro) is $115, a 1TB HDD Is about $70, so I guess there is a small difference...can't imagine its significant enough to warrant staying with HDDs. If they don't want people saving stuff locally, maybe a smaller SSD instead of a 1TB HDD would be a good start :rofl:

So...I kind of felt like there wasn't really an actual reason, unless for some reason we have weird MS Office licences that don't allow local installation?

Guys are idiots.

We had Surface Pro since inception and Dell Laptops with SSDs since 2011.

1) Sure. But if you have people on tablet/laptop, you can sleep and resume much faster on SSD. Your workstation will also draw less power.

2) People will more likely to store locally on 1TB that's 90% empty vs 128GB that's 30% empty.

3) Dell Optiplex with 500GB HD vs 128GB SSD is only $60 apart. If you can afford IT guys for only 2 days a week, I assume you have no more than 20-30 seats. Say 10 get replaced a year, you are looking at extra spending of $600 per year.

jacky4566

09-14-2016, 10:00 AM

Ouch. Yea Mitsu3000gt those guys dont sound like the greatest IT.

2) They don't like SSD's because they're faster which means people will save stuff on them locally, and then they can't back up the data.

3) SSD's are more expensive

1. Maybe the most valid point. IF the applications are run from the server ala VMware type stuff. There is no reason for SSD. Your slow boot time is probably due to it being on a domain. Every domain machine i have ever used takes forever to boot because of authentication times.
2. Really? So now they are going to tell you how to use your equipment? Unless your servers have a crazy RAID 0,0+1 setup, a regular HDD will be faster than any networked drive. Just a fact. So let me know where they are going to buy a 10GB HDD LOL.
3. Cost is your concern, not theirs. In fact they should push you to SSD so they can charge more for the install.

Mitsu3000gt

09-14-2016, 10:06 AM

Yeah the only somewhat valid reason I can possibly see is if the licences for Office are all on the servers, and if Office runs exclusively on the servers (it doesn't for me, but he said for others it does....)

My PC is getting replaced first so maybe I can be the SSD guinea pig, but if people above me listen to IT, I may lose that battle.

jacky4566

09-14-2016, 10:12 AM

You could always secretly replace your machine with SSD. Just clone the drive and away you go. Boots times alone are enough for me to consider it.

Xtrema

09-14-2016, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
My PC is getting replaced first so maybe I can be the SSD guinea pig, but if people above me listen to IT, I may lose that battle.

That's the part I was going to caution you about. Unless you like being IT, you may not want to show competency in the area. Since like your boss is already trying to save a buck by hiring only 0.8 FTE of IT resources. You may become that FTE if those guys get fired.

:rofl:

Mitsu3000gt

09-14-2016, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by Xtrema

That's the part I was going to caution you about. Unless you like being IT, you may not want to show competency in the area. Since like your boss is already trying to save a buck by hiring only 0.8 FTE of IT resources. You may become that FTE if those guys get fired.

I am already IT for many people haha. I have several people that just come to me because they don't want to bother going through the lengthy ticket process. Most of the time it's a basic issue that I can resolve in minutes, or something that I can Google and solve quickly. I don't mind. We do still need someone though because I don't know the server/network admin side of things at all. Honestly I think we could make do with a new grad or someone with a few years experience in that area.

One of the VP's is the one who asked me to spec out new computers, and when I mentioned it to IT they didn't even know this was going on haha.

eblend

09-14-2016, 12:50 PM

As someone mentioned, if all your desktops do it act as terminals to connect to server ran applications like published apps or remote app, you wouldn't really see the benefit when compared to the cost. If that is your environment, you could pretty much get away with bare bones pc and it would work just as well as a fancy PC as all the processing is server side. It would boot faster, but wouldn't help you much in any other way. The joke about it being incompatible is probably just a way to get management to forget about doing it as they don't know better, vs an actual argument.

carson blocks

09-14-2016, 01:08 PM

The best reason I can think about is some mandated full disk encryption software, or full disk imaging software that might not play nice with SSDs, but I can't say I've run across that personally.

I'd give the IT guys the benefit of the doubt and let them explain before roasting them as idiots. There might be a good chance they're idiots, but there's an equal chance they gave an overly simplistic explanation as IT guys tend to do when they're not sure of the technical level of the person they're explaining to. This overly simplistic explanation gets filtered through someone else and all of a sudden they sound like idiots. What IT guy hasn't at one point given a generic 'wouldn't work well here' answer to shut down an end users idea, rather than taking the half hour to sit down and map all the potential problems with a specific idea, and why they chose to do things a different way. If their full explanation is bunk, then by all means roast the idiots as there are too many morons in this field doing half-assed work for cheap.

A smarter IT guy would sit Mitsu down and spend an hour explaining any corporate hardware / software standards, any policies that need to be complied with, any applicable procurement policies and onboarding procedures, system hardening concerns, potential pitfalls etc. A happy and informed customer plus an hour of billable time = win/win.