Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V
-
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
Do one big array and then create two partitions. One for OS and the other for Data.
Or maybe a small drive for the OS and then a big array for the data.
@Mike-Davis @black3dynamite A hypervisor is not an OS.
So since you are saying OS and Data I can only assume you mean the guest VM? In that case, sure make as many vmdk/vhdx as you want on the OBR5/6/10 array that the hypervisor is presented.
-
@JaredBusch
Yes, I meant the hypervisor. -
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Yes, I meant the hypervisor.Then you are doing things wrong, as listed by others earlier in the thread.
-
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition? -
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?One array for both is the most general good case (there are exceptions, but the vast majority of hypervisor installs for Hyper-V should be on the same array as the VMs.)
Two partitions on top of the same array is just fine.
-
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
-
I should have added I haven't done it, but a client was asking and I couldn't think of a reason to do it that way, but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
-
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@scottalanmiller
This is a little bit off topic, are there any server boards that comes with msata interface?
That can be useful for operating systems to be installed on.HP Micro Servers have microSD slots on the motherboard. I have installed ESXi on them. Kingston makes a 4GB microSD card with SD adapter that I keep on hand so I can install ESXi on most newer servers.
-
@Mike-Davis said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@scottalanmillerThis is a little bit off topic, are there any server boards that comes with msata interface?
That can be useful for operating systems to be installed on.HP Micro Servers have microSD slots on the motherboard. I have installed ESXi on them. Kingston makes a 4GB microSD card with SD adapter that I keep on hand so I can install ESXi on most newer servers.
Tons of servers have SD card slots. It's the mSATA that is hard to find.
-
How 'bout installing the o/s (aka hypervisor) on a SATA DOM & VMs on your RAID 5/6/xxx array?
https://www.supermicro.com/products/nfo/SATADOM.cfm
-
Did you just say RAID 5?
Unless you're talking about SSD....
-
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
-
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
-
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
It happens, trust me. Does it happen more or less than a RAID card failing and taking everything with it? No idea beyond my direct experience, which is one of each.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
This used to be a big issue in my family too. No idea why it happened, but it did, all the way up until the XP days... then it tapered off.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
I feel like I've seen this like once.
-
@dafyre said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
This used to be a big issue in my family too. No idea why it happened, but it did, all the way up until the XP days... then it tapered off.
MS started working on storage stability a bit. It was pretty horrific for a long time.
