Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
a: 2x octacore xeon, b: 2x decacore xeon
Full serverware stack on each ( IIS, app server, MySQL )
Because you have Windows (you said IIS) involved, be aware that you will need extra licensing for the instances on the decacore system.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender Does that work??! If so any recommendations? These are 8 drive and 10 drive boxes so if there's a semi-affordable one that's compatible and can use the full horsepower of the drives I'd be more than down to do that.
This is what SuperMicro used to do... not sure if they are deving their own firmware these days or not.
Specific recommendation - nope. Ask Scott.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender Does that work??! If so any recommendations? These are 8 drive and 10 drive boxes so if there's a semi-affordable one that's compatible and can use the full horsepower of the drives I'd be more than down to do that.
I like disctech.com but them being local to me may make me a little biased.
-
@jaredbusch For Server 2016 right? Saw that, pretty annoying. But I like the idea of breaking things up into containers eventually so I may bite the bullet. At the moment I have 1 2012 R2 license which I think works for the decacore server w/ no extra licensing.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch For Server 2016 right? Saw that, pretty annoying. But I like the idea of breaking things up into containers eventually so I may bite the bullet. At the moment I have 1 2012 R2 license which I think works for the decacore server w/ no extra licensing.
Correct. What hypervisor you using?
-
@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware
Prepare for the wrath of the Mango!
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware
Um No.
Stop now.
Re-evaluate your needs.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@creayt Also forgot to bring up that Raid 0 also gives me way more capacity right so it'd give me terabyte(s) more before I had to scale to extra hardware? Can't remember how much Raid 5 subtracts.
RAID 5 removed one drive. So you'd buy one extra drive for each node. This would, in theory, give you a read performance boost, and a write deficit.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware
Yep. This is a bad idea.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@jaredbusch For Server 2016 right? Saw that, pretty annoying. But I like the idea of breaking things up into containers eventually so I may bite the bullet. At the moment I have 1 2012 R2 license which I think works for the decacore server w/ no extra licensing.
THat's correct.
-
About to benchmark a 5-drive Raid 5 to compare it to the Raid 0 results I've benchmarked so far. Does anyone remember if you're supposed to create the VD w/ a size that's smaller than the full capacity to redeem the benefits of over provisioning or not?
-
@dustinb3403 ? Not sure what you mean/are referring to.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dustinb3403 ? Not sure what you mean/are referring to.
You ALWAYS virtualize, unless you have a specific reason to not. i.e. can't think of anything.
-
@dashrender If anyone can name a single benefit of virtualizing given my description of this project's goals and needs I'll be very impressed.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender No virtualization at all, just throwing the full horsepower of each box at the servereware
The overhead of a hypervisor shouldn't even be a consideration. There is literally 0 benefit to doing this. You could use a hypervisor and have a true HA setup so if a node takes a nose dive, everything is instantly (I mean instantly) up on another node.
You wouldn't even have time to blink.
-
The performance hit from virtualization will be so many times less than the RAID 5 penalty, you won't notice it.
-
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender If anyone can name a single benefit of virtualizing given my description of this project's goals and needs I'll be very impressed.
easier backups.
-
@dashrender Some reasons not to for this project:
Performance goals
Time to restore a failed server would increase w/ virtualization ( extra thing to configure )
One less thing to manage
Easier scaling licensewise -
@creayt said in Is this server strategy reckless and/or insane?:
@dashrender If anyone can name a single benefit of virtualizing given my description of this project's goals and needs I'll be very impressed.
Easier failover to another machine.
