My boss wants to move to from Dell R710's to IBM Purflex/Server/San and I want Cisco

We currently use R710 servers for our VMWare hosts. My boss went to some IBM event and is all hyped about their Pureflex systems. (We have an AS400/Iseries) I want to move to a Cisco UCS platform and new SAN but my boss has decided on his own with the help of I'm sure some salesman he wants to pursue this IBM hardware.

My issue is I hate IBM. Everything they touch software wise turns to crap and I've seen so many hardware things fail from them also. OS2, their networking/switch offerings, PC's, Thin Clients, not to mention other things..

My biggest issue is I want to work with servers and SAN's that people actually use in the industry. IBM is a small market unless you run a mid range system or main frame. I need to stay on top of technology other companies use and will keep me current.

Am I wrong? Do you think it matters what hardware we use?

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

joehalford01

I wouldn't fight him if his mind is made up. Instead, offer to help decide which systems to get and dive in. He may back off when he sees the cost of their hardware and licensing structure for their software.
Having said that, their server hardware is top notch, at least the stuff that runs AIX. I know almost nothing about AIX, why? Because it never breaks...

it_consultant

IBM has fantastic salesman. I would suggest he look into HP instead of Dell and IBM. HP is just that much better than Dell, both in performance and in perception, and you don't have to go with a specialized manufacturer like IBM which doesn't have a lot of market presence. For the SAN I would recommend a NetApp. NetApp SAN, brocade switches (both Ethernet and Fabric), brocade HBAs, and HP servers make a winning combination. Sounds like your boss is in the mood to spend some money, help him with it!

Roguetadhg

I think that if you want to save your ass, make sure you send him an email in writing suggesting your ideas. In the event it blows up, and you did what you needed to - you'll have a standing chance to say "It wasn't my call".

pcgizzmo

Thanks for the replies. Great ideas. I'm going to play it cool but at the same time suggest some other options thus CYA'ing and if we end up getting IBM hardware at least I've had the experience with Dell servers and the Compellent SAN we currently have plus the IBM stuff still runs with VMWare so I'm going to be continuing to work with that if he ends up getting it.

Zartanasaurus

Last I saw, IBM was the #2 x86 server vendor. Not sure what you mean by wanting to work with servers and SANs that other people actually use. People actually use IBMs.

Forsaken_GA

pcgizzmo wrote: »

We currently use R710 servers for our VMWare hosts. My boss went to some IBM event and is all hyped about their Pureflex systems. (We have an AS400/Iseries) I want to move to a Cisco UCS platform and new SAN but my boss has decided on his own with the help of I'm sure some salesman he wants to pursue this IBM hardware.

My issue is I hate IBM. Everything they touch software wise turns to crap and I've seen so many hardware things fail from them also. OS2, their networking/switch offerings, PC's, Thin Clients, not to mention other things..

My biggest issue is I want to work with servers and SAN's that people actually use in the industry. IBM is a small market unless you run a mid range system or main frame. I need to stay on top of technology other companies use and will keep me current.

Am I wrong? Do you think it matters what hardware we use?

I think you should look for other employment. What you're saying here makes it fairly obvious to me that you're only concerned for your own advancement and your own well being. If the company isn't going in the same direction that you want to go, I feel it's dishonest to remain there and continue taking their money.

Add to that the fact that you're not necessarily thinking about what's best for the company. You've decided that you don't like IBM, and want nothing to do with their products. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but what you're doing is no different from what your accusing your boss of. You think your boss made a snap decision because he got taken by some salesman, you're willing to discount an entire brand based on your personal preferences.

What I would suggest is sitting down with your boss, finding out why he likes this decision, what he's hoping to accomplish with it. If the goals he outlines is incompatible with the gear he wants, he probably needs to know that. If the goals he outlines *are* compatible with the gear, then you need to either suck it up and deal with it, or resign.

Think it through from a business perspective - Let's say the IBM gear will meet what he deems as the requirements. Now lets say your Cisco gear will meet (and exceed!) those requirements, but costs 25% more. The boss should spend more money just because you don't like IBM? Get real.

Now flip it around, lets say the IBM gear is 25% more expensive than the Cisco gear. Most companies I know care about the bottom line, so if you can bring him a reasonable proposal that will save money, he might listen, and you'll look like a rockstar.

Of course, in that case, he could have made a deal with the salesman to buy their gear, and get a kickback. At any rate, it's his prerogative as the boss. You want to make those kinds of decisions, you go be the boss instead of the tech weenie, or go find someone else to work for. Sitting back and complaining about it is not professional.

Now, maybe you've gone more into depth on this, but from what you're presenting here, it comes across as though you're making a rush to judgement based off your own personal prejudice. On that alone, I would say you're wrong. The golden rule of dealing with management and keeping the peace is that if you're going to bring them a problem, you'd damn well better bring them a solution along with it, and you better be able to justify it. Otherwise, your place as an employee is to do their will. *They* are paying *you*, remember?

pcgizzmo

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

Last I saw, IBM was the #2 x86 server vendor. Not sure what you mean by wanting to work with servers and SANs that other people actually use. People actually use IBMs.

We used to use IBM Servers and we moved away from them and went to Dell. Dell and HP are the top two unless I'm mistaken. We use IBM for our midrange system ISeries (AS400). This is not just an IBM server it's an integrated system integrated in with the Iseries. Kind of like a Cisco UCS but will run the AS400 at the same time. Its brand new and I don't like the idea of being a beta tester and I just don't like IBM servers in general. I rarely run into IT people that use IBM servers compared to the amount of people I run into that use Dell or HP. They just don't have the market at least not in Texas where I'm from.

Edit - I stand corrected. IBM is one of the top server vendors according to Gartner but they include their mainframes in this total. I believe this greatly throws off the totals. I am talking PC x86 servers.

Roguetadhg

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Now, maybe you've gone more into depth on this, but from what you're presenting here, it comes across as though you're making a rush to judgement based off your own personal prejudice. On that alone, I would say you're wrong. The golden rule of dealing with management and keeping the peace is that if you're going to bring them a problem, you'd damn well better bring them a solution along with it, and you better be able to justify it. Otherwise, your place as an employee is to do their will. *They* are paying *you*, remember?

No truer words spoken.

This is why I made over 100 calls to Microsoft so I could register office 2010 because the individual keys were cheaper than a corporate key. It's hard to fight the rule of "What's cheapest" unless you can show a clear better ROI. Given that the time and the cost to keep each key, and to register each installation - it's still cheaper with single keys. Knowing this still didn't make it any less damned annoying speaking to the automated bot.

pcgizzmo

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I think you should look for other employment. What you're saying here makes it fairly obvious to me that you're only concerned for your own advancement and your own well being. If the company isn't going in the same direction that you want to go, I feel it's dishonest to remain there and continue taking their money.

Take it easy my friend. So, just so I understand. I should quit because I disagree with my bosses choice of a server? Have no opinion and be a happy lemming huh? Follow him right off that cliff.

I suppose if I were a help desk person this might make more sense but since I am the sr. network admin and systems person at my company and my boss doesn't have to deal with support, installation, upkeep, troubleshooting of these servers I think I'm entitled to a little more than falling off the cliff just because he pays me a salary. Not to mention I normally recommend the hardware not the other way around.

Like I said in my first post he went to a seminar for 4 days and talked to a bunch of smooth talking salesman and now he want's to change over to these integrated servers from IBM when they aren't even out yet. So, basically were going to beta test them for IBM. I'm not talking about a stand alone server here. This will be an integrated chassis that will support our AS400 and X86 VMWare hosts all being very new to IBM as well as the management software that goes along with it.

I don't know how much experience you have with IBM and their software but I've got plenty. They rarely get it right the first time. As far as the integrated servers go Cisco is the leader right now followed by HP.

You mentioned cost being a factor. Since when has IBM been the cheapest? They are usually the most expensive by a long shot. Not to mention cheapest is rarely the best solution even though you may save a few bucks you usually pay in the long run.

Man, the more I read your post the more I think I hit a soar spot with you. I'm not so stupid that I'm going to run into his office and tell him I think he's an idiot. I've been around a little longer than that. I also don't think I need to slit my wrists and quit because I posted my frustration on an internet forum and someone got their knickers in a knot over it.

Really quit because I disagree? Seriously? I just can't believe you said that. You have no clue of the dynamics of my company or between my boss and I etc.. etc.. Sheesh..

afcyung

pcgizzmo wrote: »

Take it easy my friend. So, just so I understand. I should quit because I disagree with my bosses choice of a server? Have no opinion and be a happy lemming huh? Follow him right off that cliff.

You can disagree with him and still follow him. If the decision is ultimately his, unless you seek employment elsewhere you will be maintaining the IBM hardware if your manager purchases it.

pcgizzmo wrote: »

I suppose if I were a help desk person this might make more sense but since I am the sr. network admin and systems person at my company

You didn't mention this information in your OP. So how would anyone know unless your present the information?

pcgizzmo wrote: »

and my boss doesn't have to deal with support, installation, upkeep, troubleshooting of these servers I think I'm entitled to a little more than falling off the cliff just because he pays me a salary. Not to mention I normally recommend the hardware not the other way around.

Why do you think he doesn't have to deal with these things? Just because he isn't in the trenches with you doesn't mean he doesn't deal with theses things. He is more than likely keeping the rest of the management team off you and your coworkers if something critical breaks.

pcgizzmo wrote: »

Like I said in my first post he went to a seminar for 4 days and talked to a bunch of smooth talking salesman and now he want's to change over to these integrated servers from IBM when they aren't even out yet. So, basically were going to beta test them for IBM. I'm not talking about a stand alone server here. This will be an integrated chassis that will support our AS400 and X86 VMWare hosts all being very new to IBM as well as the management software that goes along with it.

So he went to a seminar and found something he likes. Its not a big deal, most managers do this, part of his job is finding new ways to meet the demands of the company with the best ROI. This is subjective and its going to be his call more than likely.

pcgizzmo wrote: »

Really quit because I disagree? Seriously? I just can't believe you said that. You have no clue of the dynamics of my company or between my boss and I etc.. etc.. Sheesh..

Your right he doesn't. No one does but you didn't offer it up so people had to assume and you know what they say. You could have mentioned your position in the company and how most of your tech upgrades/refreshes go.

pcgizzmo wrote: »

My biggest issue is I want to work with servers and SAN's that people actually use in the industry.My biggest issue is I want to work with servers and SAN's that people actually use in the industry. IBM is a small market unless you run a mid range system or main frame. I need to stay on top of technology other companies use and will keep me current.

When you say this though, it honestly comes off as you are only looking out for yourself. Why do you need to stay on top of technology other companies use? Do you work for them? No you work for your employer and you need to stay current on the tech they are paying you to work on.

pcgizzmo wrote: »

Am I wrong? Do you think it matters what hardware we use?

Yes and no. Will the IBM hardware meet your needs? If yes then why do you care? Are you responsible for the IT budget? If so then yes you should care about the cost if not then why worry about it? If the hardware is complete junk the only person responsible for that decision is your boss, that is what he gets paid for. If your boss is set on this, unless you have some factual evidence not just your personal experience, you will be hard pressed to change his mind. I think you should state your case for not using IBM and going with cisco, but if he still decides to use IBM, don't take it personal.

Forsaken_GA

pcgizzmo wrote: »

Take it easy my friend. So, just so I understand. I should quit because I disagree with my bosses choice of a server? Have no opinion and be a happy lemming huh? Follow him right off that cliff.

I see I got your attention.

At no point did I say be a lemming and have no opinion. You have an opinion. Your opinion is that you hate IBM. Now while that opinion is certainly valid for your own choices, good luck trying to convince other people not to do something just because you don't like it. There have been an awful lot of people who've tried that throughout history, and traditionally, it doesn't work out very well.

What I am saying is that you should leave your job because your personal goals have apparently been undermined by your bosses decision, and if your goals are no longer in sync, it is better for you and for your company if you moved on. Unhappy employees are at best less productive, and at worst harmful.

I suppose if I were a help desk person this might make more sense but since I am the sr. network admin and systems person at my company and my boss doesn't have to deal with support, installation, upkeep, troubleshooting of these servers I think I'm entitled to a little more than falling off the cliff just because he pays me a salary. Not to mention I normally recommend the hardware not the other way around.

And there's your entire problem. You think that because you have an 'advanced' job title, you're entitled. I don't care what your position is. So what if your boss isn't involved in installation, support, etc. That's what he hired you for, after all. If he *was* doing that work, then why would he need to pay you? You'd be superflous at that point. Your job responsibilities are greater than that of a helpdesk weenie, I get that. I'm also willing to bet your compensation is more than that of a helpdesk weenie (If it's not, then that's your fault for being a crappy negotiator). This is a problem alot of alpha geeks struggle with, they get uppity because they think they're entitled to some say just because they built something and they maintain it. I have news for you - putting the word Senior in your job title does not give you enumerated powers.

And to point out something else that you're overlooking - you said you normally recommend the hardware. Recommend is a much different thing than select for purchase. What, are your feelings hurt because he didn't solicit your recommendation, or he decided not to go with your recommendation in this case? Get over it.

Like I said in my first post he went to a seminar for 4 days and talked to a bunch of smooth talking salesman and now he want's to change over to these integrated servers from IBM when they aren't even out yet. So, basically were going to beta test them for IBM. I'm not talking about a stand alone server here. This will be an integrated chassis that will support our AS400 and X86 VMWare hosts all being very new to IBM as well as the management software that goes along with it.

I'm willing to bet I have alot more experience with you when it comes to datacenter and enterprise rollout, integration, migration. Believe me, I understand perfectly what you're talking about. I also have plenty of experience in having hardware dumped on me that I didn't want, and then having to go make it work in order to keep the promises the sales people were nice enough to make without checking to see if we could actually deliver on them. Now, I'm not trying to get into a dick comparison contest with you here, I mention this for one reason only - don't try the 'you just don't get it, man!' thing with me. It's not going to fly. Been there, done that.

I don't know how much experience you have with IBM and their software but I've got plenty. They rarely get it right the first time. As far as the integrated servers go Cisco is the leader right now followed by HP.

So what? Can the proposed solution meet the needs of the business? Will it harm the business to do this deployment? Or will it just make your job more inconvenient? If it can't, and it will do harm, then that's how you need to approach it with your boss. If it's the latter, then you're just bellyaching.

You mentioned cost being a factor. Since when has IBM been the cheapest? They are usually the most expensive by a long shot. Not to mention cheapest is rarely the best solution even though you may save a few bucks you usually pay in the long run.

I mentioned it could be. I have no idea what your manager negotiated with them. You make the complaint about being beta testers for IBM's new products. IBM may have been willing to offer a discount for your company being guinea pigs. Purchasing kit is a game. I've had Cisco try and sell me their gear for more than one of their partner resellers, and wouldn't come down on their price for the same gear even after we told them (needless to say, we did not buy direct from Cisco). I've had Force10 give me a bigger discount than they give Sun just to keep the business away from their competitors. Only a complete and utter fool pays full retail.

Now, I would agree with you that cheapest isn't always the best way to do things. Doesn't matter one whit in the business world. Money, Politics, and the Right Way To Do It - In that order. And until you understand that, you're going to continue having conflicts. If you don't want to operate under that paradigm, then you don't have to, but you are going to have to go into business for yourself, as that's about the only way you get to define your own
operational reality.

Man, the more I read your post the more I think I hit a soar spot with you. I'm not so stupid that I'm going to run into his office and tell him I think he's an idiot. I've been around a little longer than that. I also don't think I need to slit my wrists and quit because I posted my frustration on an internet forum and someone got their knickers in a knot over it.

Really quit because I disagree? Seriously? I just can't believe you said that. You have no clue of the dynamics of my company or between my boss and I etc.. etc.. Sheesh..

I also don't care. I know only what you posted.

Your post comes across like you're being a crybaby. WAAAAH MY BOSS DIDNT BUY THE EQUIPMENT I WANT! THIS ISNT WHAT I WANT TO WORK WITH! WAAAAAAH!

If I'm not willing to accept that from a 8 year old, I'm sure as hell not going to accept it from a supposed professional with the title of senior network administrator.

Your choices are simple - A. Suck it up and deal with B. Quit C. Go be the boss yourself

Whining about it on the internet is unproductive and unprofessional. Go take your issues up with the person that can actually do something about it.

Or you can keep feeling entitled and crying about it behind the cover of anonymity. Why should you be any different than anyone else, after all?

ChooseLife

Despite harsh words, Forsaken_GA's comments offer excellent advise. As much as we, "technically savvy professionals" like to think it is about technical skills, factual knowledge and engineering solutions, it is not. In reality, it's all about business and delivering value to the company...

pcgizzmo

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

I also don't care. I know only what you posted.

Your post comes across like you're being a crybaby. WAAAAH MY BOSS DIDNT BUY THE EQUIPMENT I WANT! THIS ISNT WHAT I WANT TO WORK WITH! WAAAAAAH!
If I'm not willing to accept that from a 8 year old, I'm sure as hell not going to accept it from a supposed professional with the title of senior network administrator.

Your choices are simple - A. Suck it up and deal with B. Quit C. Go be the boss yourself

Whining about it on the internet is unproductive and unprofessional. Go take your issues up with the person that can actually do something about it.

Or you can keep feeling entitled and crying about it behind the cover of anonymity. Why should you be any different than anyone else, after all?

What I posted is no different than if my company had switched from Cisco routers to Juniper routers or VMWare to Citrix XenServer. I've spent time learning certain things and helping decide those things were the right direction for me and for my company. I'm voicing my frustration over it on a public forum and if you want to call that crying then yes, you can call it crying.

We as IT people spend a considerable amount of time learning technology and to have that time thrown out the door frustrates me. Am I going to run and find a new job because of it? Not right now but maybe in the future. Indeed what equipment I work with may have an effect on my next job so I have to keep that in mind. How many hours of my personal time have I spent learning certain things only to have that thrown out the door by a split second decision by someone in management? According to you I should just suck it up and carry on like a good corporate soldier.

You sound like you've been drinking too much corporate cool aid IMO. I want to do a good job for my company and work with what I'm given but I also have to look out for myself. They aren't going to do it. Again, you make pretty blanket statements w/out knowing the dynamics of my relationship with my boss and the company I work for. I routinely purchase software, hardware etc.. Yes, this is after running it by my boss but for the most part he goes w/what I and the other admins recommend because he knows we arethe ones that are going to need to use it and keep it up. As long as it's in the budget #'s he "normally" doesn't care. What he's done here is a radical 180 degree change from his normal mode of operation and it's truly because he got fairy dust sprinkled on him at a conference.

At any rate I will make note that it's a bad idea to voice frustration on this forum in the future and keep my thoughts to myself.

paul78

pcgizzmo wrote: »

At any rate I will make note that it's a bad idea to voice frustration on this forum in the future and keep my thoughts to myself.

As I recall from your other posts, you've been working for some time with a bit of experience. One thing that's great about this forum, is that there's a lot of varying experience and viewpoints. That's what makes it a great place to either voice frustrations or even shoot-off questions that you may not have anyone else to talk with.

Where else could you get the type of opinions? There are people at all levels on this board.

I was actually been following this thread with interest. Because there are times when I wonder how some of my own decisions at my job are perceived or impact others.

What is the size of the business you work in? It's a bit unusual to see a wholesale decision to change technology without a proper tco analysis. But if your manager's goal is to ease into the IBM transition - it may be a good long-term decision. Based on what I've read about the Pureflex, if IBM can deliver on this platform in the same way as they have done for their i-series and p-series mid-range gear - this could be a game-changer in how x86 enterprise platforms are delivered.

Forsaken_GA

pcgizzmo wrote: »

What I posted is no different than if my company had switched from Cisco routers to Juniper routers or VMWare to Citrix XenServer. I've spent time learning certain things and helping decide those things were the right direction for me and for my company. I'm voicing my frustration over it on a public forum and if you want to call that crying then yes, you can call it crying.

Of course it's no different, and it'd still be whining. I'm a network engineer, and I have a crapton of Cisco certs. Does that mean I get to only work with Cisco gear? Hell no, I've got to deal with kit from six different vendors off the top of my head, and I'm sure there's more that I'm forgetting about. If I was stubborn and insisted on only working with Cisco gear, my career options would be somewhat limited. Over the years of my career, I've had to learn to adapt, and I strongly suspect you're going to find most folks that are operationally oriented have had to deal with the same thing. You still seem to be under the illusion that the company should adapt to you, and not the other way around.

We as IT people spend a considerable amount of time learning technology and to have that time thrown out the door frustrates me. Am I going to run and find a new job because of it? Not right now but maybe in the future. Indeed what equipment I work with may have an effect on my next job so I have to keep that in mind. How many hours of my personal time have I spent learning certain things only to have that thrown out the door by a split second decision by someone in management? According to you I should just suck it up and carry on like a good corporate soldier.

Ok, so you're whining again. Look, things move fast in this industry. You're going to be in a constant state of learning if you actually want to make a career out of this, otherwise you're going to find your skills are obsolete. And lets be frank, switching vendors does not mean starting your knowledgebase from scratch. Specific implementations may differ, but the skills translate pretty well. From a network engineers perspective, I'm a big Cisco geek. And then management does to buy some Juniper gear. Do I all of a sudden forget everything I know about networking just because of the vendor change? Of course not. The underlying concepts all remain the same, the changes are usually just a matter of syntax or figuring out how to do the same crap in one GUI that I've had to do in another. I look at each new thing I get to touch as an opportunity to grow myself as a professional. Flexibility is key if you give a damn about being the best you can at your chosen profession.

And you can stop putting words in my mouth - I did not say you should suck it up like a good corporate soldier. You have a choice, but it's one you need to make. Can you live with the bosses decision? If so, then yes, suck it up and keep marching. If not, then move on. If you think you can do a better job than the boss, then go after the bosses job, whether with the same company, another, or starting your own. What I am saying is that the petty tin god syndrome you seem to suffer from is neither healthy, nor conducive to a long or enjoyable career. I'd be willing to bet good money that you're not indispensable to your company and could be replaced. If that's the case, you don't have nearly the leverage that you think you do. I have no doubt that you're a smart person, and good at what you do. Problem is, there are plenty of other people like that out there as well.

I'm not suggesting you be a corporate little drudge. I am suggesting you understand your place in the ecosystem. You're an ops guy. Your job is to take the requirements they give you and make them a reality. If you play the game right, you're able to have some influence on direction or method, but at the end of the day, you're not a shot caller. If you're not comfortable with that, then you're not in the right job, and I strongly suggest you remedy that. Don't be one of those folks who spends 20 to 40 years doing something he absolutely hates and retires as a miserable ****.

You sound like you've been drinking too much corporate cool aid IMO. I want to do a good job for my company and work with what I'm given but I also have to look out for myself. They aren't going to do it. Again, you make pretty blanket statements w/out knowing the dynamics of my relationship with my boss and the company I work for. I routinely purchase software, hardware etc.. Yes, this is after running it by my boss but for the most part he goes w/what I and the other admins recommend because he knows we arethe ones that are going to need to use it and keep it up. As long as it's in the budget #'s he "normally" doesn't care. What he's done here is a radical 180 degree change from his normal mode of operation and it's truly because he got fairy dust sprinkled on him at a conference.

You don't know me, so I don't blame you for thinking that I'm pro corporate. When it comes down to it, I'm largely indifferent. I understand the business aspects of the work I do, as well as the operationally relevant aspects. I've had more than one opportunity to move to management, and I always turn it down because I like getting my hands dirty.

I'm not a particular fan of the corporate lifestyle, but I understand my role within it, and I'm not arrogant enough to believe that something that came from higher up is going to change just because I don't like it. I learned a long time ago, either play the game, or the game will play you. And I practice what I preach. On two separate occasions, I've left employers because they made decisions I ultimately couldn't get behind, and left me very dissatisfied. Since I refuse to sit and wallow in misery, I took action to improve conditions for myself, and I am very much happier for it. My bosses tend to respect my opinion on matters, and give it due consideration. I've had several proposals either modified or killed outright, because I very calmly and logically was able to demonstrate why the impact of a decision would be a Very Bad Thing. I've also had things go forward as planned, despite my input. Often, what will happen is exactly what I told them would happen, which covers *my* ass, as well as making them twice about not heeding my advice the next time. And I've also had things go forward as planned, and work out just fine. This taught me to always allow for the possibility that I might be wrong, and to make damn sure I had my bases covered.

If a given change just makes things inconvenient, I can usually find ways to mitigate it with a little ingenuity, and if not, that's life, and I get to make the decision if it's something I want to go to the mats for. You've got to pick and choose your battles, and give a little every now and then, otherwise you gain the reputation for being difficult to work with, and that one is almost always a kiss of death to your career within a given company.

At any rate I will make note that it's a bad idea to voice frustration on this forum in the future and keep my thoughts to myself.

Why? I certainly don't speak for anyone but myself. It's not necessarily your content that I have a problem with, I do understand your viewpoint. But your presentation was horrible. I suspect if you'd have left your personal prejudices out of it, as well as the rather self-interested parts, and presented a more logical and reasoned approach to your frustrations, you'd have been met with a more sympathetic response. Presentation is *everything* when dealing with others.

I'm going to be frank - I'm sure that the representation of yourself that you give here isn't exactly the same as I'd see if I knew you personally. I'm sure you're a little more discrete in your day to day dealings with people. If I was your boss, and I saw a hint of the person I'm seeing in these posts, you'd get the Come Back To Jesus speech, and depending on your reaction to it, you'd possibly be looking for other employment thereafter. People tend to show who they are a little more when they think no one's looking.

Now you're entitled to your opinion as to whether or not I'm a corporate stooge, but here are the facts of life. Employers do not offer jobs so that you can do what you want to do. They're not being nice and giving you the opportunity to indulge only the pursuits you want to engage in. Employers offer jobs because they have a specific need to be filled. How that need is filled may come with a mandate regarding method or means. An employees approval or disapproval is entirely incidental. While some companies may grant a degree of autonomy, it's fairly rare to have complete autonomy - everyone is accountable to someone else. That autonomy is a privilege, not a right, and it can be revoked at will.

The perceptive among the readership will have come to the realization that these are all lessons that folks generally learn from their parents, assuming the parents did a good job preparing their kids to be productive citizens.

pcgizzmo

Forsaken_GA wrote: »

Now you're entitled to your opinion as to whether or not I'm a corporate stooge, but here are the facts of life. Employers do not offer jobs so that you can do what you want to do. They're not being nice and giving you the opportunity to indulge only the pursuits you want to engage in. Employers offer jobs because they have a specific need to be filled. How that need is filled may come with a mandate regarding method or means. An employees approval or disapproval is entirely incidental. While some companies may grant a degree of autonomy, it's fairly rare to have complete autonomy - everyone is accountable to someone else. That autonomy is a privilege, not a right, and it can be revoked at will.

You know, the funny this is I agree with 95% of what you are saying. Yes, I'm sure I could have worded this better but I was frustrated and I wanted to talk about it with people that work in the same industry.

The thing I wasn't looking for and maybe I deserved what I got, was for someone to come along and tell me I was acting like a baby. I posted what I posted because I can't whine at my boss and I do have to "suck it up" as you say. I do have to go with the final decision and I won't go screaming I will be a good employee and if I don't like it I will eventually leave just as you suggested.

So, maybe I hit a sore spot with you I don't know. What I was looking for was for some fellow IT peeps to commiserate with and I got your don't whine speech. So, I guess I don't get why you felt the need to come down on me for expressing my disgruntlement with my management? Obviously as you stated I know not to act like this in my daily job and I don't, but we both agree I can have an opinion and I was just stating it.

My post was intended to be much like a guy walking into a bar with a bunch of friends and saying what a crap day he had and explaining why only to have one of his friends say "Shut up your acting like a baby".

Anyway, like I said I agree with much of what you are saying and I would not have made it 12 years with this company if I didn't know how to act in a business like manner and get along with others.

pcgizzmo

paul78 wrote: »

As I recall from your other posts, you've been working for some time with a bit of experience. One thing that's great about this forum, is that there's a lot of varying experience and viewpoints. That's what makes it a great place to either voice frustrations or even shoot-off questions that you may not have anyone else to talk with.

Where else could you get the type of opinions? There are people at all levels on this board.

I was actually been following this thread with interest. Because there are times when I wonder how some of my own decisions at my job are perceived or impact others.

What is the size of the business you work in? It's a bit unusual to see a wholesale decision to change technology without a proper tco analysis. But if your manager's goal is to ease into the IBM transition - it may be a good long-term decision. Based on what I've read about the Pureflex, if IBM can deliver on this platform in the same way as they have done for their i-series and p-series mid-range gear - this could be a game-changer in how x86 enterprise platforms are delivered.

I work in a fairly small IT dept. It's my boss then the CIO. We have 9 programmers which the CIO manages then we have 6 systems people of which I am one. What frustrates me the most is that we totally got rid of all IBM servers except the Iseries about 10 years ago because the same boss thought they were to expensive and didn't like the failure rate we were having.

Possibly the Pureflex is going to be a great platform but I would like to see that before jumping right in feet first.

it_consultant

phoeneous wrote: »

pcgizzmo,

For what it's worth, a lot of the major hotels and casinos on the Las Vegas strip use some sort of IBM implementation to manage their core. I also worked for a nationwide bank that ran their entire banking operation on it. Don't discount IBM, they've come a very long way since 10 years ago.

I understand where both of you are coming from but I agree with Forsaken, business trumps geekness everyday. Know your role. Best of luck.

Yes and no. My buddy and I spent some time researching the pureflex system when I originally read this post and we concluded that anyone considering it should proceed with extreme caution. Just because the boss wants something because they saw a great sales pitch doesn't mean that the IT department should go along without applying all of their geekness to the possible solution.

A pureflex implementation, such as it was presented by IBM's public documentation, will cost at least half a million. That doesn't include the cost of the IBM guys who put it in, or the IBM guys who will migrate your existing x86 servers into the pureflex's virtualized platform. Plus whatever SAN costs you have to include - the pureflex comes with its own SAN, so you either need to ditch your old one or marry it to the pureflex.

Having said all that, I would love to have a pureflex system sitting around for me to learn on. When else will you get to learn IBM storage and IBM virtualization in the same swoop?

jibbajabba

The only way to convince a non-technical decision maker, is to present the pros / cons with more than just "I hate them".

We were supposed to use iSCSI SANs from SUN .. I hated them for technical reasons, but none the less .. I hated them ..

Since I knew other types of SAN and evaluated them (and love Equallogics), I basically written up a business case.

Basically a compare and contrast between the SUN and DELL, even phoned them all up and got prices, support, spare costs and so on ..

Even made comparisons between the useability and supportibility (from the user point of view) ..

Guess what - we are using Equallogics and have such a status with Dell now that we get them for prices which are almost criminal low ..

DevilWAH

I am moving in to a company that uses 3com and HP for there network ewwwwwww!! but I understand there reasons, for access devices there is little benefit (if any of using Cisco) and there are lots cheaper. And I have also lernt from the wide variety of vendors and systems I have worked on that there is as much difference in how you implement the same bit of hard ware in two companies as there is between the hard ware of different vendors.

I learnt in my last job that if you want some thing, then sell it to your boss, the same way the IBM salesman sole there product. dazzle them with facts, explain where what you want is better, how it will bring more money or save more money for the business. That's the one thing that every director / CO will listen to.

And never discount a product becasue "you don't like the company", I have seen a company spend £5,500 on a layer 3 switch for a single use in a temporary porta-cabin so they could access email! now while I hate the idea of an of the shelf £15 netgear hub being connected to my network I can see in a case like this its possible the best option.

So first Does your bosses solution address the needs of you VMware hosts?
If so can you solution do it cheaper, It might be able to do it better bit the question is does the business needs it done better. So like for like, and cost for cost is yours still the better solution for the business?

IF his Idea does not meet the needs then put them down on paper and discuss them with him, again how does your solution meet them better and not introduce un-needed costs.

You can "get your own way" but you need to put on your salesman hat and sell your idea. Don't lie, don't make things up or try to make your solution sound better than it is. Just sell your idea, set out a list of question you would like to know about his idea and ask him to get answers form the IBM sales guy. he more you show that you have looked in to each idea to weigh them up the more likely he will be to listing to your alternative suggestion.

The danger here of course is when half way though your own idea starts to change and you start to like his Idea better

Believe me it happens far more often than you would expect.

pcgizzmo

It's funny I've talked to my boss today and he stated that cost is going to be a factor because just the base system starts out at 100k w/not much on it. As it_consultant stated one configured w/SAN X86 processors and Power PC processors is going to run up in the 500k or more range.

Maybe I got all bent out of shape about nothing

QHalo

Of all the things that I've learned over the years, and still have a tough time with it from time to time, is that no matter how bad a situation may seem, you're probably making a much bigger deal about it than it truly is. Whether it be a situation I created, or a situation created for me.

GL, I'm not a huge fan of IBM stuff. I had to support their xSeries stuff back a few years ago and things as simple as firmware upgrades were a major pain in the rump. They ran super hot and their software integration, at least on the x86 side, was sub-par to my tastes. Minor gripes sure, but as an admin it does suck to work on equipment that makes your life a living hell in the process. Either way, it looks good on the resume. As a tech geek, I like touching all kinds of hardware. It gives you a broader perspective to base future opinions upon.

QHalo

Man, as I was typing that that is exactly what I said to myself and I knew I should've corrected it.

paul78

pcgizzmo wrote: »

It's funny I've talked to my boss today and he stated that cost is going to be a factor because just the base system starts out at 100k w/not much on it. As it_consultant stated one configured w/SAN X86 processors and Power PC processors is going to run up in the 500k or more range.

Maybe I got all bent out of shape about nothing

I was just catching up on your post. I see you mentioned that the IT department is small about 9-10 people so I'm guessing it's also a small company. I would think based on what I've been reading about the Pureflex that it could be overkill for your organization. Sometimes a simple back-of-the napkin total-cost-ownership review is all it takes to get a reality check.

BTW - this could have been a good opportunity to get exposed to some interesting technology. That always helps build perspective on technology solutions.

pcgizzmo

paul78 wrote: »

I was just catching up on your post. I see you mentioned that the IT department is small about 9-10 people so I'm guessing it's also a small company. I would think based on what I've been reading about the Pureflex that it could be overkill for your organization. Sometimes a simple back-of-the napkin total-cost-ownership review is all it takes to get a reality check.

BTW - this could have been a good opportunity to get exposed to some interesting technology. That always helps build perspective on technology solutions.

Yes, were fairly small 400 - 450 employees and around 300 million in annual sales. I agree it could be an opportunity to learn something new and maybe I will change my mind once I get to actually see the product and some hands on with it if that is what we end up going with.

Your right about it possibly being overkill. I've talked to an IBM Business partner that say's IBM is positioning it at large corporations that have a multitude of different systems and to help simplify management of them. We are basically a Microsoft and ISeries/AS400 shop. So it might be overkill especially when we see the price.

Thanks for the reply.

it_consultant

pcgizzmo wrote: »

Yes, were fairly small 400 - 450 employees and around 300 million in annual sales. I agree it could be an opportunity to learn something new and maybe I will change my mind once I get to actually see the product and some hands on with it if that is what we end up going with.

Your right about it possibly being overkill. I've talked to an IBM Business partner that say's IBM is positioning it at large corporations that have a multitude of different systems and to help simplify management of them. We are basically a Microsoft and ISeries/AS400 shop. So it might be overkill especially when we see the price.

Thanks for the reply.

I am thinking for Cloud server providers this is a good product. One rack is essentially an entire datacenter infrastructure. Set up a couple of those racks and you get loads of capacity with IBMs unique virtualization technology.

GlockandRoll

I'm doing some research on the IBM Pureflex, Dell/HP Blades as well.. but mostly how it compares to the Cisco UCS.

Fist post here, but I almost did not as it's really a damned shame when I see a forum and this happens.

When I see the flame-war start, it turns me off. You guys aren't even really talking about the technology differences, unless they are buried and i fell asleep.. sigh.

So here, I'll share my opinion after working in tech for more than 15 years, having been a former Dell escalations L2 and worked with IBM/Cisco/nd HP blades for a long time in the data center.

The IBM Pureflex has some distinct advantages over the UCS, and they are as follows:

1. 40GB internal network IO on the back-plane
2. 56GB infiniband support
3. Integrated Storage with the V7000
4. Lower cost (when comparably configured)
5. 16GB FC
6. RISC nodes for System-i, power, Unix, etc.

They support VMware, Hyped-up-V, KVM, and there own PowerVM as well as Xen also, and the whole thing is controlled through the flex system manager.

But don't let me sound IBM focused, I'm trying to convince my company that hardware is mostly irrelevant and just go with all super-micro dual twins with VSA's for storage and let the hypervisor define the datacenter over software initiated 10GB enternet iSCSI and run every single thing in VMware - even the stuff the vendors say they wont support virtual.

But you guys are right, IBM does have some really strong salesmen.. just make sure you are in the room with them to keep them honest when they are talking to your boss.

The more stuff I can virtualize, the less time I have to spend in the after-hours and the more money it saves my company.. and i dont get locked in to dealing with EMC/IBM/Netapp sales shitheads. Microsoft is about the only real evil empire I foresee dealing with long term and I'm used to it now so I can deal with thier sales reps.

it_consultant

This wasn't a flame war! My storage guy loves the V7000s. We were just commenting on the price of the thing, and maybe that it isn't necessary. We have 16GB FC on our Hitachi SAN and our ethernet switches have 40 GB interconnects (ICX 6650/6610 + ethernet SAN) so I can basically do the same thing as the IBM flex with a combination of x86 server providers.

bdub

There is some intense conversation in here, and I admit I didnt read it all. But I just wanted to chime in and say that we are primarily IBM shop with a decent size data center and recently started deploying PureFlex systems for VMware hosts. So far we have had a mostly positive experience with them, their management software could definitely be better but we really dont use their software to manage our systems. I think the big kicker for the PureFlex is the cost benefit vs other brands out there (I dont know the specifics on this as I wasnt involved in this aspect). Your boss is probably pumped up about them because of the cost/performance ratio.

bdub

GlockandRoll wrote: »

They support VMware, Hyped-up-V, KVM, and there own PowerVM as well as Xen also, and the whole thing is controlled through the flex system manager.

Just a word of caution, dont get carried away thinking the FSM is going to solve all your problems. Calling it "half-baked" is about as nicely as I can put it.