Cannot decide between 1U servers for growing company
-
@ntoxicator said:
Thanks for your comments and replies!
I'll look into HP servers before DELL. It concerns me about their price/performance now as I feel their quality has deteriorated over the years. Supermicro I know is always a good choice, as I've used them for years. its just the time to configure and build the whitelabel machines and then also the warranty/support. Comes at a cost.
Anytime we have a minute of downtime. I have COO & CEO breathing down my neck screaming.
ProxMox reason: It has straight KVM or OpenVZ support. also has enterprise features. Why pay more for Citrix Xen Server when its complete BULLSHIT in my eyes. Sorry.. I dont see the benefits of Citrix Xen Server (KVM based).
No true experience with VMware eSXI.
Right now we have 6TB of storage in RAID-10 Array. But gets depleted pretty quickly. Using right about 2TB of that for company storage and user data. Working to re-work the storage needs and just use iSCSI LUN and attach to Windows Server 2008.
Right now the DATA Storage is piped through Citrix Xen Server in means of ISCSI LUN and mapped as a Drive associated to the VM. This was not smart on my behalf years ago. I would of been better to just directly attach a LUN right to Windows server using the ISCSI initiator. Everything was a blur 2 years ago when was scrambling to put the build together at the time.
As @coliver said, XenServer is free and based on Xen not KVM. Proxmox also isn't supporting OpenVZ any longer, it's now LXC. Just for fun the other day I set up a Proxmox test environment and it was really slow compared to straight CentOS 7 with KVM. If you're set on KVM, I wouldn't use Proxmox, as you can script essentially everything it does. You can use Virt-Manager to control it if you don't want to do CLI.
-
@ntoxicator said:
Also looking at the LENOVO System X (IBM Line) of servers.
The one vendor I would totally avoid. Literally nothing would make me consider ever doing business with them. They are outright crooks.
-
@johnhooks said:
As @coliver said, XenServer is free and based on Xen not KVM. Proxmox also isn't supporting OpenVZ any longer, it's now LXC. Just for fun the other day I set up a Proxmox test environment and it was really slow compared to straight CentOS 7 with KVM. If you're set on KVM, I wouldn't use Proxmox, as you can script essentially everything it does. You can use Virt-Manager to control it if you don't want to do CLI.
Honestly, if you are interested in KVM you need to be looking at Scale. Fully managed KVM environment with HA features all baked in and high performance clustered storage all baked in. True HA top to bottom (except for the app level, that's still up to you) with full support.
-
Thank you for info.
I'll take another look at Xen Server. As I've used 6.0 and 6.1. Also helped maintain a smaller datacenter that supported ~200 users in a healthcare facility.
Again. We Presently have one(1) Supermicro server running Xen Server 6.0 and hosting the primary Domain Controller VM. But the primary of the data. 2TB Worth of data is connected to Xen Server through iSCSI LUN and then a drive attached to the Virtual machine through Xen Server.
issue: Looking to Migrate this domain controller to a more potent server. How though with 2TB of data? As its mapped through Citrix Xen server. So if I was to clone the VM disk and migrate to ProxMox - i cannot necessarily re-attach the iSCSI LUN back to the same server. Now, if we stayed on Citrix - moved to larger server. I cloned the Operating System disk. Migrated. And then re-attached the same iSCSI LUN and setup back to new node; that could probably work
I just seen as Windows iSCSI initiator working much better; more manageable and not limited.
Would I rather use NFS over iSCSI? Absolutely..
UPDATE: Yes, we're currently using Xen Server FREE edition. Works fine. I've used the Xen Server Enterprise at the data center I helped manage. It was better, although it had its own issues.
I personally just find ProxMox better features over Citrix Xen Server (free edition)
Maybe its my background with hosting game servers and that experience as well? As I'm also versed with SolusVM
-
@ntoxicator said:
However, CISCO has their servers now.... But -- this brings back very bad memories for TAC Support and the website needs to die. Cant find shit on their website.
I've used Cisco and I considered them a viable enterprise player. One of the best engineers that I know, @John-Nicholson swears by them. I've had less than stellar experiences. Never had them be bad, just failing to be as good as other options. Too costly and complicated, not enough value. Just not Cisco's wheelhouse.
-
@ntoxicator said:
I just seen as Windows iSCSI initiator working much better; more manageable and not limited.
No offense but you are the first person I have ever heard say this...
-
Essentially What I was looking to do was KVM / VM with complete HA.
I'm uncertain about keeping data local to individual servers. maybe because I have no experience with localized storage in an HA environment? Its all been shared centralized storage.
-
@ntoxicator If that is what you are wanting, I would definitely look at Scale.
-
shit me for getting torn to shreds on here. Pissing contest.
Its much easier to verbalize than type out exact specifics.
What i meant by "I just seen as Windows iSCSI initiator working much better; more manageable and not limited."
Am I currently using windows iSCSI initator? NO
Do I wish I was using it: Yes?Why: Because I feel it would be easier to manage and connect an iSCSI LUN as localized storage and data storage. The larger 2TB storage holds all the windows network shares and user profile data.... thats the problem.
-
@coliver said:
Dell, HP, and Supermicro are really the only ones I would look at. Lenovo has had some questionable practices over the past year that make me shy away from them (they are 100% Lenovo now there is nothing IBM about them). Don't do Cisco you are going to pay a lot of money for things that you can get for less somewhere else.
Lenovo wasn't good before that, just not outright evil. They were just low end, poorly supported, overpriced stuff before. They were "bad value." Now they are unthinkably outright enemies of their customers. Even when IBM made those servers they weren't that good. IBM didn't use them when they made them themselves. Never buy servers from a vendor that needs to run their competitors' gear to keep the lights on.
-
NOTED!
So back to looking at Sunfire servers or CISCO's lineup.
I just think the Sunfires are down right sexy in appearance, and high built quality. The ones I have are the highest quality servers I've seen in contrast to HP or DELL. I bought them used for my personal testing in Proxmox HA cluster setup.
-
@ntoxicator said:
Essentially What I was looking to do was KVM / VM with complete HA.
I'm uncertain about keeping data local to individual servers. maybe because I have no experience with localized storage in an HA environment? Its all been shared centralized storage.
If you used shared storage you have to do tons to get HA as the external storage adds all kinds of risk that pulls you in the opposite direction as HA. At a small scale, local storage is generally the only possibly way to have HA.
The best HA compute environment in the world is only as good as the storage it runs on. If the storage isn't HA, the stack isn't HA. And getting HA storage is tough.
-
@ntoxicator said:
NOTED!
So back to looking at Sunfire servers or CISCO's lineup.
I just think the Sunfires are down right sexy in appearance, and high built quality. The ones I have are the highest quality servers I've seen in contrast to HP or DELL. I bought them used for my personal testing in Proxmox HA cluster setup.
If the price and features come in right, I'm all for Oracle hardware.
If you can move to all Sparc and Solaris, even better!!
-
Define "At a small scale, local storage is generally the only possibly way to have HA."
In my eyes and logic. Seems centralized storage is the way to go.
I'm unsure how you can have HA cluster or setup when the storage needs are localized at the individual server level. Unless of-course, all the data is shared between all servers and replicated.
For instance.
NODE1 - has NFS shares on it
NODE2 & NODE2 - pull data off NODE1's NFS share.NODE1 suddenly goes down? Then what, as that data is localized to that server.
So just shoot me down as a noob on here. Completely changing what I know?
-
@ntoxicator said:
Essentially What I was looking to do was KVM / VM with complete HA.
Several options there. Build your own, ProxMox (not a fan for multiple reasons that I could go into but might not need to... works but isn't ideal as a product or as a company) or Scale. Scale is the only one that handles HA for you. If you build your own or do ProxMox you are pretty much limited to doing DRBD on your own which is a bit of work and requires some expertise. Or you have to get HA storage and HA SAN networking which means looking at vendors like EMC and 3PAR as starting points and tons of money.
Scale does all of this with HA in both the compute and the storage and everything. There are other vendors like Simplivity and Nutanix but neither have the technical stack of Scale and neither focuses on the market that you are in like Scale.
-
@ntoxicator said:
shit me for getting torn to shreds on here. Pissing contest.
IT gets taken a little too seriously around here but it's only because we're all really passionate about it. That's part of the community's ... charm
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@ntoxicator said:
Essentially What I was looking to do was KVM / VM with complete HA.
Several options there. Build your own, ProxMox (not a fan for multiple reasons that I could go into but might not need to... works but isn't ideal as a product or as a company) or Scale. Scale is the only one that handles HA for you. If you build your own or do ProxMox you are pretty much limited to doing DRBD on your own which is a bit of work and requires some expertise. Or you have to get HA storage and HA SAN networking which means looking at vendors like EMC and 3PAR as starting points and tons of money.
Scale does all of this with HA in both the compute and the storage and everything. There are other vendors like Simplivity and Nutanix but neither have the technical stack of Scale and neither focuses on the market that you are in like Scale.
I want to try GlusterFS with two KVM hosts and see how it works. I've seen a couple people online do it.
-
@ntoxicator said:
Define "At a small scale, local storage is generally the only possibly way to have HA."
At three or fewer physical hosts, there is no reasonable option except for local storage - it is literally impossible for non-subsidized external storage to compete at all. Once you get to four or more physical hosts there start to be possible scenarios where specific situations like giant nodes, special storage needs might make very niche scenarios make sense but only in the most extreme circumstances.
Typically the number you assume is twelve. Until you have at least twelve physical virtualization nodes (means likely around 600+ VMs) you don't even think of looking at external storage. Even at that scale external storage is unlikely, but well worth considering.
-
@johnhooks said:
I want to try GlusterFS with two KVM hosts and see how it works. I've seen a couple people online do it.
not for the faint of heart. I've worked with some huge shops that did this and it can be done, but rarely were they happy about it in the end.
-
@ntoxicator said:
shit me for getting torn to shreds on here. Pissing contest.
Sorry don't mean to tear anyone to shreds just giving advice and helping to fix some bad information... I've been told I can be a bit abrasive at times.
