That was what my supervisor asked me, I said, depends what the question is, so he was telling me about 2 server architectures proposed by the vendor, one is purely with physical servers, another was all VMs.
The PjM who was doing the calculations, all the technical guys were out for lunch, and they wanted to ask me for a second opinion. She was not aware of the various components required so I explained to her what a SAN is, what a database cluster is, VM host, mount point, etc, then she asked me, "so do i need a vm host if i just use physical servers?" Without a thought, I said no. She said, "Really?" I confirmed with her that the physical servers were not intending to host VMs. After that she went back to do her calculations and all, then my supervisor asked me what I thought of the diagram, I said, I don't think you need a database cluster unless you intend to build a data warehouse.
In the end they went to look at the details and realised that there was no database cluster required. It was also supposed to only have 1 application server, so I don't know why they need a hardware load balancer.
Another weird thing on the diagram was a firewall was placed between the hardware load balancer and 2 application servers, and the load balancer was placed on the web-tier. Well... I didn't want to dig too much, so I just didn't bother, maybe people really do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment