John

My feedback

  1. 476 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    55 comments  ·  Storage » Misc  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    John commented  · 

    Well, that certainly prices it out of range for the use cases I was thinking of. I'm sure that there's environments where this may make sense... It's just no longer an easy way to move clients off existing poor storage into a fail over environment if they are budget constrained.

    I was really hoping that Microsoft would use this as a way to encourage smaller business to transition off vmware and onto hyper v. The cost of performing a migration + licensing for the same features (Which an included vsan would have broken parity with VMWare) makes it really hard to get existed about changing infrastructure, and seeing as our clients have been sold vmware for the past five years exclusively, retraining and menu costs without a deal making feature is hard.

    What I'm honestly surprised by is that they don't just limit scale out to a number of nodes or amount of storage, but instead kept it entirely removed.

    Probably will check it out on preview 4 though, because maybe they'll license it a la carte or something reasonable between now and release.

Feedback and Knowledge Base