Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment
-
@jimmy9008 said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
but its the same switch/hardware/cables. So I presume if I can get access to that kit with Wireshark or something id be able to get the traffic regardless of VLANs, and the fact they are VLANs wouldn't matter... Could be wrong here though (probably am)...
That's subnets that you are thinking of. If you can do that with a VLAN, it's not a VLAN
The definition of a VLAN means that that can't be done. -
Okay, I've not read everything but starting from the top...
Networking - VLANs are gone. You describe very clearly in the OP that they serve no purpose, don't talk about them again. Gone. Done. Over. One Big Flat Network, OBFN.
Servers - Definitely no need for more than one. Going down to just one will significantly improve your performance and your reliability. Right now your apps depend on the separate database server which depends on your SAN. That's an inverted pyramid with another tier. So instead of the normal three tiers of risk, you have five! Collapsing that down to one will make you so much more reliable. Hyper-V is fine. So is KVM.
Storage - This is easy, local disks. Either all SSD or one SSD pool and one spinner pool. That's all.
-
REDIS should be on Linux, REDIS on Windows is crazy. It's expensive and slow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
REDIS should be on Linux, REDIS on Windows is crazy. It's expensive and slow.
I just finished reading a little on REDIS yesterday, and when I asked myself why we're running it on Windows, the answer came to me. Previous and most of current regime (I'm the exception) = if there's a way to do X with Microsoft, use Microsoft.
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
REDIS should be on Linux, REDIS on Windows is crazy. It's expensive and slow.
I just finished reading a little on REDIS yesterday, and when I asked myself why we're running it on Windows, the answer came to me. Previous and most of current regime (I'm the exception) = if there's a way to do X with Microsoft, use Microsoft.
sigh
I'd have the same reaction to anyone that just defaulted to = if there's a way to do X with CentoOS, use CentOS mentality.
-
@travisdh1 said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
REDIS should be on Linux, REDIS on Windows is crazy. It's expensive and slow.
I just finished reading a little on REDIS yesterday, and when I asked myself why we're running it on Windows, the answer came to me. Previous and most of current regime (I'm the exception) = if there's a way to do X with Microsoft, use Microsoft.
sigh
I'd have the same reaction to anyone that just defaulted to = if there's a way to do X with CentoOS, use CentOS mentality.
Except one is saving the company money the other is costing them? Not sure if that's a direct corollary.
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
REDIS should be on Linux, REDIS on Windows is crazy. It's expensive and slow.
I just finished reading a little on REDIS yesterday, and when I asked myself why we're running it on Windows, the answer came to me. Previous and most of current regime (I'm the exception) = if there's a way to do X with Microsoft, use Microsoft.
Don't ask why not Microsoft, put it in dollars and ask why spending so much and not able to maintain the latest versions. Don't mention the tech, that's not how IT communicates. Make them see business terms, make them make business decisions.
-
@travisdh1 said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
REDIS should be on Linux, REDIS on Windows is crazy. It's expensive and slow.
I just finished reading a little on REDIS yesterday, and when I asked myself why we're running it on Windows, the answer came to me. Previous and most of current regime (I'm the exception) = if there's a way to do X with Microsoft, use Microsoft.
sigh
I'd have the same reaction to anyone that just defaulted to = if there's a way to do X with CentoOS, use CentOS mentality.
Right, the reaction is "tech over business".
-
I agree with the idea of thinking in terms of greenfield and using the hardware I have, rather than looking at how stuff is structure now and simply trying to replicate that but with VMs.
Here's my current thought process about what VMs to make and storage.
Current Server 2 becomes the new Hyper-V Host
- This server has the best processor and most RAM of the other two.
- Combine the Intel S3500 SSDs from the other two and create a RAID 5 array of the six 300 GB disks to have 1.5 TB of usable storage. This would leave two unused drive bays.
- Between all of the servers right now 971 GB of storage is used. Perhaps RAID 6 with 1.2 TB of usable storage makes more sense.
- Have five VM guests: IIS Server, SQL Server, REDIS, PostFix server, VM for what will become our backup solution
For the REDIS, PostFix, and other VM, I plan on giving them each one VHD. I'm curious about your folks' opinions on storage for IIS and SQL Server.
Current storage for the physical SQL Server:
- Two SSDs in RAID 1 presenting a disk where the OS and SQL Server application are installed
- Four SSDs in RAID 10 present a disk where it appears the actual database files are stores, as well as SQL Server's backups.
Current storage for the physical IIS Server:
- Two SSDs in RAID 1 presenting a disk where the OS and applications are installed
- Four Winchester disks in RAID 10 presenting a disk where the files used by our web application / IIS are stored.
For a virtualized SQL server and IIS , does it make sense to have separate VHDs for the OS / application and actual database files / virtual folders? Or would it be better to have a single VHD with separate partitions? Perhaps the greater question is there any advantage having such separation?
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
For a virtualized SQL server and IIS , does it make sense to have separate VHDs for the OS / application and actual database files / virtual folders?
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
For SQL Server, it likely still makes sense to have a VHD for the OS and one for the data and one for the logs.
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
Perhaps the greater question is there any advantage having such separation?
With SQL Server separation you can limit log growth, or snapshot data separately from other things that you don't care about in the same way.
-
REDIS and Postfix are way more likely, as stateful machines, to need special consideration compared to IIS. IIS is like Apache.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
For a virtualized SQL server and IIS , does it make sense to have separate VHDs for the OS / application and actual database files / virtual folders?
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
For SQL Server, it likely still makes sense to have a VHD for the OS and one for the data and one for the logs.
I don't think I was clear. They are not lumped together. They'll be two separate VMs.
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
For a virtualized SQL server and IIS , does it make sense to have separate VHDs for the OS / application and actual database files / virtual folders?
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
For SQL Server, it likely still makes sense to have a VHD for the OS and one for the data and one for the logs.
I don't think I was clear. They are not lumped together. They'll be two separate VMs.
I meant lumped together in your thinking and approach. You have many VMs, but are treated those two like they might have special storage needs. One is your most storage intense, the other is your least. Why treat the two of them as special and not, for example, your other database server?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
For a virtualized SQL server and IIS , does it make sense to have separate VHDs for the OS / application and actual database files / virtual folders?
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
For SQL Server, it likely still makes sense to have a VHD for the OS and one for the data and one for the logs.
@scottalanmiller on the SQL Server -- Any reason to not use a single larger VHD and partition it as opposed to multiple VHDs?
-
@dafyre said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
For a virtualized SQL server and IIS , does it make sense to have separate VHDs for the OS / application and actual database files / virtual folders?
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
For SQL Server, it likely still makes sense to have a VHD for the OS and one for the data and one for the logs.
@scottalanmiller on the SQL Server -- Any reason to not use a single larger VHD and partition it as opposed to multiple VHDs?
Yes. Partitions are blind to Hyper-V so if you do that you lose power.
-
I meant lumped together in your thinking and approach. You have many VMs, but are treated those two like they might have special storage needs. One is your most storage intense, the other is your least. Why treat the two of them as special and not, for example, your other database server?
I see what you're saying.
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
There's about 500 GB of data that's stored on that IIS server which is used in some way by our application (working on figuring out exactly what/how). IIS has a virtual directory that points to it. Should that data live on the one VHD that's for the IIS VM?
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
I meant lumped together in your thinking and approach. You have many VMs, but are treated those two like they might have special storage needs. One is your most storage intense, the other is your least. Why treat the two of them as special and not, for example, your other database server?
I see what you're saying.
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
There's about 500 GB of data that's stored on that IIS server which is used in some way by our application (working on figuring out exactly what/how). IIS has a virtual directory that points to it. Should that data live on the one VHD that's for the IIS VM?
Why is IIS storing stuff?
-
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
I meant lumped together in your thinking and approach. You have many VMs, but are treated those two like they might have special storage needs. One is your most storage intense, the other is your least. Why treat the two of them as special and not, for example, your other database server?
I see what you're saying.
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
There's about 500 GB of data that's stored on that IIS server which is used in some way by our application (working on figuring out exactly what/how). IIS has a virtual directory that points to it. Should that data live on the one VHD that's for the IIS VM?
yeah, this is how our old EHR was - all the scanned in documents were stored on the IIS server. After 7 years we had 800 GB of documents there - it was a nightmare.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
@eddiejennings said in Food for thought: Fixing an over-engineered environment:
I meant lumped together in your thinking and approach. You have many VMs, but are treated those two like they might have special storage needs. One is your most storage intense, the other is your least. Why treat the two of them as special and not, for example, your other database server?
I see what you're saying.
These should not be lumped together, these are polar opposite workloads. IIS is a stateless system with essentially zero storage needs. It should be treated very differently than your most storage heavy system, SQL Server.
For IIS, you'd just use a single VHD and that's it. Easy peasy.
There's about 500 GB of data that's stored on that IIS server which is used in some way by our application (working on figuring out exactly what/how). IIS has a virtual directory that points to it. Should that data live on the one VHD that's for the IIS VM?
Why is IIS storing stuff?
Here's where my ignorance of terms is probably going to shine. It's probably our application (which is on the IIS server) storing stuff, not IIS itself. I'm working on getting information from the folks who built this in the first place to figure out what's going on.
