ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    How would you build this

    IT Discussion
    research opinions business
    13
    31
    3.8k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • JaredBuschJ
      JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
      last edited by JaredBusch

      @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

      You can use Veeam to back up any RHEL VM if you want. It's agent, not agentless, but for the context of this single system that is identical.

      Adding a third party service that is not certified by the vendor into the VM is not currently allowed.
      Did not think to state that earlier, thanks.

      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • JaredBuschJ
        JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

        Do they only support RHEL when branded as RHEL or do they support CentOS, too? That's an additional large cost savings.

        They only support RHEL. And it is only $349 for RHEL and $450 per year to maintain RHEL support for the KVM box. It is a cost, but not very significant.

        The VM instance is RHEL, but not something to be touched without breaking the designed suport system.

        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • scottalanmillerS
          scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
          last edited by

          @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

          @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

          You can use Veeam to back up any RHEL VM if you want. It's agent, not agentless, but for the context of this single system that is identical.

          Adding a third party service that is not certified by the vendor into the VM is not currently allowed.
          Did not think to state that earlier, thanks.

          Oh okay, that sucks. They don't provide a backup mechanism then? Or do they, just not one that you want?

          JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
            last edited by

            @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

            @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

            Do they only support RHEL when branded as RHEL or do they support CentOS, too? That's an additional large cost savings.

            They only support RHEL. And it is only $349 for RHEL and $450 per year to maintain RHEL support for the KVM box. It is a cost, but not very significant.

            The VM instance is RHEL, but not something to be touched without breaking the designed suport system.

            So the KVM bit, though, you could do without RH and only get a license for the VM itself. Since you'd, I assume, not get support for Hyper-V in the same way, you don't need it for KVM.

            JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • JaredBuschJ
              JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
              last edited by JaredBusch

              @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

              @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

              @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

              You can use Veeam to back up any RHEL VM if you want. It's agent, not agentless, but for the context of this single system that is identical.

              Adding a third party service that is not certified by the vendor into the VM is not currently allowed.
              Did not think to state that earlier, thanks.

              Oh okay, that sucks. They don't provide a backup mechanism then? Or do they, just not one that you want?

              There is a backup mechanism for the data. But more options are always better. VM restoration is always faster than rebuild restore in a non-stateful system.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
              • JaredBuschJ
                JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                last edited by JaredBusch

                @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

                @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                Do they only support RHEL when branded as RHEL or do they support CentOS, too? That's an additional large cost savings.

                They only support RHEL. And it is only $349 for RHEL and $450 per year to maintain RHEL support for the KVM box. It is a cost, but not very significant.

                The VM instance is RHEL, but not something to be touched without breaking the designed suport system.

                So the KVM bit, though, you could do without RH and only get a license for the VM itself. Since you'd, I assume, not get support for Hyper-V in the same way, you don't need it for KVM.

                Correct for hte hypervisor.
                For the VM, it has full RHEL support as part of the purchase from the vendor. That is never a question.

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • ObsolesceO
                  Obsolesce
                  last edited by Obsolesce

                  I like how well Hyper-V supports and runs RHEL.

                  It sounds like the hardware will just be running one VM. Built-in back up on Hyper-V Server 2016 all the way via the host, no issues there if you can use block-level storage for your backups. It's so much easier and faster to backup and restore the VM as a whole anyways... no VM agent needed. Also, you get the option of "production" checkpoints (snapshots) on 2016. That's definitely noteworthy.

                  Getting the hardware through xByte with a Dell warranty has you more than covered hardware wise.

                  The hypervisor Hyper-V Server 2016 is just so solid on Dell hardware you don't even have to worry about that aspect.

                  The only finger pointing you'll need with this setup is the Vendor's software and the OS itself... which they cover.

                  That's the build I would choose. Lots of good reasons that point to great uptime and stability, plus easy backups and restores at the host level, with snapshot capability that is actually worth a damn.

                  JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • JaredBuschJ
                    JaredBusch @Obsolesce
                    last edited by

                    @Tim_G said in How would you build this:

                    It sounds like the hardware will just be running one VM. Built-in back up on Hyper-V Server 2016 all the way via the host, no issues there if you can use block-level storage for your backups. It's so much easier and faster to backup and restore the VM as a whole anyways... no VM agent needed. Also, you get the option of "production" checkpoints (snapshots) on 2016. That's definitely noteworthy.

                    What specific features are you talking about here? I have Hyper-V 2016 server up in a lab environment but have yet to actually test anything.

                    ObsolesceO 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                      last edited by

                      @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

                      @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                      @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

                      @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                      Do they only support RHEL when branded as RHEL or do they support CentOS, too? That's an additional large cost savings.

                      They only support RHEL. And it is only $349 for RHEL and $450 per year to maintain RHEL support for the KVM box. It is a cost, but not very significant.

                      The VM instance is RHEL, but not something to be touched without breaking the designed suport system.

                      So the KVM bit, though, you could do without RH and only get a license for the VM itself. Since you'd, I assume, not get support for Hyper-V in the same way, you don't need it for KVM.

                      Correct for hte hypervisor.
                      For the VM, it has full RHEL support as part of the purchase from the vendor. That is never a question.

                      Makes sense. Not ideal, but not a big deal, either. Or maybe ideal for you individually if you wanted that support. Just not ideal not to have the flexibility to choose for yourself.

                      JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • JaredBuschJ
                        JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                        @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

                        @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                        @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

                        @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                        Do they only support RHEL when branded as RHEL or do they support CentOS, too? That's an additional large cost savings.

                        They only support RHEL. And it is only $349 for RHEL and $450 per year to maintain RHEL support for the KVM box. It is a cost, but not very significant.

                        The VM instance is RHEL, but not something to be touched without breaking the designed suport system.

                        So the KVM bit, though, you could do without RH and only get a license for the VM itself. Since you'd, I assume, not get support for Hyper-V in the same way, you don't need it for KVM.

                        Correct for hte hypervisor.
                        For the VM, it has full RHEL support as part of the purchase from the vendor. That is never a question.

                        Makes sense. Not ideal, but not a big deal, either. Or maybe ideal for you individually if you wanted that support. Just not ideal not to have the flexibility to choose for yourself.

                        Yes, and I have a personal preference for this situation, but I am keeping my questions and responses neutral. Because I want feedback and not an echo chamber for my ideas.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • DashrenderD
                          Dashrender
                          last edited by

                          You are much more familiar with Hyper-v, if you are supporting this you might be better off.

                          Plus the other benefits of choice you mentioned.

                          Is this a super high performance application where it seems likely that then vendor will blame the hypervisor if there are problems?

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                          • stacksofplatesS
                            stacksofplates
                            last edited by

                            Personally I'd run it on my own KVM machine. That way I could add the upstream QEMU repos for exporting snapshots through libvirt. But then again I manage 12 KVM hosts so I'm probably a little partial.

                            I'm not surprised at only supporting RHEL. After it took over a month for CentOS to catch up to 7.3 I realized the merger didn't help any with releasing patches faster. I still use CentOS by default but I can understand where they are coming from, we have applications that are the same way.

                            Anyway I vote for using your own host and what you know best.

                            travisdh1T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                            • travisdh1T
                              travisdh1 @stacksofplates
                              last edited by

                              @stacksofplates said in How would you build this:

                              Anyway I vote for using your own host and what you know best.

                              That would be my recommendation as well.

                              Just the fact that they're giving me supported options is a great thing, that already rules out many software products.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • scottalanmillerS
                                scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                An obvious question is... does the customer have any needs beyond this that might influence it?

                                matteo nunziatiM 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • dafyreD
                                  dafyre
                                  last edited by

                                  If we're talking a $10k solution, I would likely pick option one to simply avoid the finger pointing game and all of that.

                                  If this were a $100k solution, I'd opt to take the 20% savings.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                  • ObsolesceO
                                    Obsolesce @JaredBusch
                                    last edited by

                                    @JaredBusch said in How would you build this:

                                    @Tim_G said in How would you build this:

                                    It sounds like the hardware will just be running one VM. Built-in back up on Hyper-V Server 2016 all the way via the host, no issues there if you can use block-level storage for your backups. It's so much easier and faster to backup and restore the VM as a whole anyways... no VM agent needed. Also, you get the option of "production" checkpoints (snapshots) on 2016. That's definitely noteworthy.

                                    What specific features are you talking about here? I have Hyper-V 2016 server up in a lab environment but have yet to actually test anything.

                                    I mentioned two in there. Windows Server Backup, and "Production Checkpoints".

                                    JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • matteo nunziatiM
                                      matteo nunziati
                                      last edited by matteo nunziati

                                      Ok if it is a Vm what kind of finger pointing could be there? I think about performance and special setups. Virtualization is expected to abstract hw. If the vm image format is convertible I don't see why hypervisor/hw should matter.

                                      As first I could thick about performances, then guest agents not being available in vendor image, third strange network configs hard to be attained without kvm.

                                      For sure centos+your hw (can you buy the same machine?) should be near 100% ok!
                                      Other combinations should be checked for previous 3 points and if they are ok don't see any issue

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • matteo nunziatiM
                                        matteo nunziati @scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller said in How would you build this:

                                        An obvious question is... does the customer have any needs beyond this that might influence it?

                                        Wait is it to be run for your business or for a customers of yours? If it was for internal usage my previous post still hold. Otherwise I think that keeping the default witha 3rd party is better. Can they understand where a real issue is in case of finger pointing?

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • DanpD
                                          Danp
                                          last edited by

                                          Beyond the aforementioned finger pointing, what prevents you from running the VM on your current virtual infrastructure w/o purchasing an additional server?

                                          matteo nunziatiM JaredBuschJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • matteo nunziatiM
                                            matteo nunziati @Danp
                                            last edited by

                                            @Danp said in How would you build this:

                                            Beyond the aforementioned finger pointing, what prevents you from running the VM on your current virtual infrastructure w/o purchasing an additional server?

                                            just the hypervisor I think

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 1 / 2
                                            • First post
                                              Last post