Vendors: Tell Me What Your Product Costs

Published On: 2018-07-23By:

A couple of weeks ago, my friend and colleague Matthew Roche (t), put out a poll about people’s feelings about vendors who don’t publicly advertise the costs associated with their products. In the past, in a disconnected world, when most of your customers had sales reps, and being able to find all of your competitors pricing wasn’t possible, abstracting prices to minimize comparisons made business sense. In an interconnected world, especially given the nature of cloud computing pricing (usually straightforward storage+compute costs), abstracting or hiding your prices just annoys potential customers.

2788169816_fe951bb5b5_z

In my roles where I’ve had to set budget, I’ve frequently been frustrated, especially with hardware vendors, in their inability to get me a rough idea of their pricing. I’m not asking for a quote–I understand discounts, volume pricing, etc. I just want to know the number of zeroes in your product costs. I understand different customers have different costs, but make your pricing clear, so I can understand it. As much as I’ve bagged on Oracle for their “aggressive” sales tactics, I’ve always been able to go to their website and get full list of retail pricing for their products. And I applaud them for that.

Why am I writing about this now? I mostly thought the IT industry was beyond this type of pricing, especially given the move towards cloud computing, pricing has become much more transparent. However, last week I was at a very large customer, and we were talking to a vendor who had a very promising technology. The vendor couldn’t give the customer any semblance of pricing–this was a two-fold problem. Their licensing model is so abstracted that I’ve got no idea what I was buying (and you thought DTUs were bad), and secondly, the sales rep could barely give us any idea of what our monthly spend would be for the product.

Part of the modern, connected world is that consumers can quickly comparison shop. For example, 80% of retail customers check pricing online when they are in a store (Regalado, Antonio. “It’s All E-Commerce Now.” Technology Review, November 4, 2013. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520786/its-all-e-commerce-now/). Enterprise customers are doing the same thing–while that may be frustrating to old school salespeople, it’s the way of life now.

Make your pricing as transparent as possible–if your prices may fluctuate due to other factors like cloud pricing, put in a footnote in your price list, but still make it clear. Your sales message will be all the better.

Vendors: Tell Me What Your Product Costs

Published On: By:

A couple of weeks ago, my friend and colleague Matthew Roche (t), put out a poll about people’s feelings about vendors who don’t publicly advertise the costs associated with their products. In the past, in a disconnected world, when most of your customers had sales reps, and being able to find all of your competitors pricing wasn’t possible, abstracting prices to minimize comparisons made business sense. In an interconnected world, especially given the nature of cloud computing pricing (usually straightforward storage+compute costs), abstracting or hiding your prices just annoys potential customers.

2788169816_fe951bb5b5_z

In my roles where I’ve had to set budget, I’ve frequently been frustrated, especially with hardware vendors, in their inability to get me a rough idea of their pricing. I’m not asking for a quote–I understand discounts, volume pricing, etc. I just want to know the number of zeroes in your product costs. I understand different customers have different costs, but make your pricing clear, so I can understand it. As much as I’ve bagged on Oracle for their “aggressive” sales tactics, I’ve always been able to go to their website and get full list of retail pricing for their products. And I applaud them for that.

Why am I writing about this now? I mostly thought the IT industry was beyond this type of pricing, especially given the move towards cloud computing, pricing has become much more transparent. However, last week I was at a very large customer, and we were talking to a vendor who had a very promising technology. The vendor couldn’t give the customer any semblance of pricing–this was a two-fold problem. Their licensing model is so abstracted that I’ve got no idea what I was buying (and you thought DTUs were bad), and secondly, the sales rep could barely give us any idea of what our monthly spend would be for the product.

Part of the modern, connected world is that consumers can quickly comparison shop. For example, 80% of retail customers check pricing online when they are in a store (Regalado, Antonio. “It’s All E-Commerce Now.” Technology Review, November 4, 2013. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/520786/its-all-e-commerce-now/). Enterprise customers are doing the same thing–while that may be frustrating to old school salespeople, it’s the way of life now.

Make your pricing as transparent as possible–if your prices may fluctuate due to other factors like cloud pricing, put in a footnote in your price list, but still make it clear. Your sales message will be all the better.

A Problem with Storage Spaces, Failover Clustering, and Always On Availability Groups in Azure

Published On: 2018-05-03By:

This is quite possibly my longest blog post title, ever, however it is pretty important for anyone who is building SQL Server configurations using Azure virtual machines. If you aren’t familiar with Azure storage, the max size of an individual disk is 4 TB (and more importantly 7500 IOPs–most workloads will be better served by the 1 TB/5000 IOPs P30 disks), and to get a volume larger than the size of a single disk (and with more IOPs), the admin will use Storage Spaces to create a RAID 0 group (because Azure provides RAID in the infrastructure) and you get the sum of your storage and IOPs. This process is well documented and I’ve done it a number of times or customer workloads. I was building a new availability group for a customer last week, and the process was a little bit different, and failed on me.

Windows Clustering is Aggressive with Your Storage

Note: As I was writing this post, about four different parts of the VM creation process changed in the portal. Welcome to cloud computing boys and girls.

So in this demo–I created a VM and added two disks. I’ll also join the VM to our Active Directory domain. I haven’t added failover clustering yet. From server manager, I can see my primordial storage pool, with the two disks I’ve added.

p1

So, next I’ll add the Failover Clustering feature and build a one node cluster. For this demo, you only need one node–the behavior is same in a single or multi-node configuration. I’ve built a cluster and you will note that there are no disks present in the cluster.

p2

However, if I go back to storage spaces, I still see my primordial pool, but no physical disks, and now I have an error about “Incomplete Communication with Cluster”

p4

At this point, I am unable to configure a storage pool for my SQL Server data.p5

I’ve had inconsistent results here–but in no situation have I been able to create a storage pool.

Workaround

This really sucks, but the workaround is the evict the node from the cluster, and then create your storage pool as documented above. That’s kind of gross, so a better workaround is to configure your storage spaces pool, before you add your node to your Windows cluster. I did test the process of adding a new disk to an existing pool, after the server has been clustered and that process works as expected.

Root Cause

My thought (and I haven’t tried to debug this, but I have communicated with Microsoft Windows and SQL teams about it) is that clustering is being too aggressive with the available storage. I tried running some PowerShell to prevent clustering from taking the disks, but I still had the same result. I’ll update this post if I hear anything further from Microsoft.

 

A Problem with Storage Spaces, Failover Clustering, and Always On Availability Groups in Azure

Published On: By:

This is quite possibly my longest blog post title, ever, however it is pretty important for anyone who is building SQL Server configurations using Azure virtual machines. If you aren’t familiar with Azure storage, the max size of an individual disk is 4 TB (and more importantly 7500 IOPs–most workloads will be better served by the 1 TB/5000 IOPs P30 disks), and to get a volume larger than the size of a single disk (and with more IOPs), the admin will use Storage Spaces to create a RAID 0 group (because Azure provides RAID in the infrastructure) and you get the sum of your storage and IOPs. This process is well documented and I’ve done it a number of times or customer workloads. I was building a new availability group for a customer last week, and the process was a little bit different, and failed on me.

Windows Clustering is Aggressive with Your Storage

Note: As I was writing this post, about four different parts of the VM creation process changed in the portal. Welcome to cloud computing boys and girls.

So in this demo–I created a VM and added two disks. I’ll also join the VM to our Active Directory domain. I haven’t added failover clustering yet. From server manager, I can see my primordial storage pool, with the two disks I’ve added.

p1

So, next I’ll add the Failover Clustering feature and build a one node cluster. For this demo, you only need one node–the behavior is same in a single or multi-node configuration. I’ve built a cluster and you will note that there are no disks present in the cluster.

p2

However, if I go back to storage spaces, I still see my primordial pool, but no physical disks, and now I have an error about “Incomplete Communication with Cluster”

p4

At this point, I am unable to configure a storage pool for my SQL Server data.p5

I’ve had inconsistent results here–but in no situation have I been able to create a storage pool.

Workaround

This really sucks, but the workaround is the evict the node from the cluster, and then create your storage pool as documented above. That’s kind of gross, so a better workaround is to configure your storage spaces pool, before you add your node to your Windows cluster. I did test the process of adding a new disk to an existing pool, after the server has been clustered and that process works as expected.

Root Cause

My thought (and I haven’t tried to debug this, but I have communicated with Microsoft Windows and SQL teams about it) is that clustering is being too aggressive with the available storage. I tried running some PowerShell to prevent clustering from taking the disks, but I still had the same result. I’ll update this post if I hear anything further from Microsoft.

 

1 2 3 23

Video

Globally Recognized Expertise

As Microsoft MVP’s and Partners as well as VMware experts, we are summoned by companies all over the world to fine-tune and problem-solve the most difficult architecture, infrastructure and network challenges.

And sometimes we’re asked to share what we did, at events like Microsoft’s PASS Summit 2015.