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

    Virtualization and HA, Scalability

    IT Discussion
    virtualization scalability high availability
    12
    73
    7.7k
    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.
    • K
      kelsey @DustinB3403
      last edited by

      @dustinb3403 what do u mean 4 pieces i am dyslexic

      DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        This article is about SAN, but really applies equally to all external shared storage in the manner that your professor proposed:

        http://www.smbitjournal.com/2013/06/when-to-consider-a-san/

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • DustinB3403D
          DustinB3403 @kelsey
          last edited by

          @kelsey 0_1516818797484_chrome_2018-01-24_13-18-20.png

          Pretty much in any case of any piece of the triangle fails, you lose services.

          Take any 1 away and something is gone / not functional until repaired or replaced.

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

            Here is a video talking about why everyone is trying to take advantage of businesses, by trying to sell them a SAN that they clearly have no need for.

            Youtube Video

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

              I've seen a lot of people (not in professional communities, of course, but this could easily come up in a buyer's community or in a uni class...) claim that anything a vendor is willing to sell them HAS to be a good idea, because, presumably, vendors are infallible and altruistic?

              Youtube Video

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

                I know that this is a lot of material, but this is a really important subject, and one that you could go back to the uni and show not only that you know more than the class, but more than the professor and, very likely, more than the uni themselves.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • DustinB3403D
                  DustinB3403
                  last edited by DustinB3403

                  Now what often happens in that a sales person will say "You can lose a server and everything will migrate to the second server.

                  And this can be true.

                  But what they aren't telling you is if you lose the base (storage server) or the switch or (both physical server 1 and 2) that everything is gone.

                  And what is worse is you may not have the available resources on physical server 2 to run the entire combined workload that was previously split among the 2 servers.

                  0_1516819043938_chrome_2018-01-24_13-18-20.png

                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @DustinB3403
                    last edited by

                    @dustinb3403 said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                    Now what often happens in that a sales person will say "You can lose a server and everything will migrate to the second server.

                    And this can be true.

                    Right, we call this the "top down trick." It's a way of taking the architecture, which should be viewed from its side (showing the inverted pyramid triangle) and looking only from the top. Basically looking from the side is what engineers do, looking from the top is what end users do.

                    From the top, the inverted pyramid appears to be broad and stable, everything that the non-technical customer sees is that the servers, the one piece that they can physically grasp the purpose for, is "redundant" and "redundant" is a clever trick word that people assume means "reliable", but doesn't.

                    So non-technical customers can be easily convinced that they have something reliable, and that all of the extra cost is to magically make that reliability happen. When, in reality, they are looking from the wrong angle and all of the risks have been cleverly hidden until after the sale has been completed.

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

                      @kelsey said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                      0_1516817204394_Capture12.PNG

                      Now with Hyperconvergence, the above example uses local storage inside of physical host #1 and physcal host #2, using some kind of software (like StarWind vSAN or Microsoft's Storage Spaces Direct) that treats the storage in each Host as a single pool of shared storage. (like how in your picture the "storage server" is portrayed, but tha twould go away and would be inside of each physical host)

                      This way, you have no single point of storage failure.

                      If host 1 goes down, all data is also on host 2 where everything can continue running after the VMs fail over. Same with if Host2 goes down.

                      thwrT 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                      • ObsolesceO
                        Obsolesce @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                        @dustinb3403 said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                        Now what often happens in that a sales person will say "You can lose a server and everything will migrate to the second server.

                        And this can be true.

                        Right, we call this the "top down trick." It's a way of taking the architecture, which should be viewed from its side (showing the inverted pyramid triangle) and looking only from the top. Basically looking from the side is what engineers do, looking from the top is what end users do.

                        From the top, the inverted pyramid appears to be broad and stable, everything that the non-technical customer sees is that the servers, the one piece that they can physically grasp the purpose for, is "redundant" and "redundant" is a clever trick word that people assume means "reliable", but doesn't.

                        So non-technical customers can be easily convinced that they have something reliable, and that all of the extra cost is to magically make that reliability happen. When, in reality, they are looking from the wrong angle and all of the risks have been cleverly hidden until after the sale has been completed.

                        And it seems as though the professor is looking from the top down, and not realizing this is all riding on the single, most fragile part of the whole thing.

                        In this graphic, what you want to be HA is the virtual machines. If the "storage server" dies, the whole thing crashes. The storage server is a single point of failure, and as others already mentioned, is also the most likely thing to fail and the most fragile part of the whole thing.

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

                          @tim_g said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                          @scottalanmiller said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                          @dustinb3403 said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                          Now what often happens in that a sales person will say "You can lose a server and everything will migrate to the second server.

                          And this can be true.

                          Right, we call this the "top down trick." It's a way of taking the architecture, which should be viewed from its side (showing the inverted pyramid triangle) and looking only from the top. Basically looking from the side is what engineers do, looking from the top is what end users do.

                          From the top, the inverted pyramid appears to be broad and stable, everything that the non-technical customer sees is that the servers, the one piece that they can physically grasp the purpose for, is "redundant" and "redundant" is a clever trick word that people assume means "reliable", but doesn't.

                          So non-technical customers can be easily convinced that they have something reliable, and that all of the extra cost is to magically make that reliability happen. When, in reality, they are looking from the wrong angle and all of the risks have been cleverly hidden until after the sale has been completed.

                          And it seems as though the professor is looking from the top down, and not realizing this is all riding on the single, most fragile part of the whole thing.

                          Right, like an end user rather than like an IT person.

                          DustinB3403D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DustinB3403D
                            DustinB3403 @scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            @scottalanmiller said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                            @tim_g said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                            @scottalanmiller said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                            @dustinb3403 said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                            Now what often happens in that a sales person will say "You can lose a server and everything will migrate to the second server.

                            And this can be true.

                            Right, we call this the "top down trick." It's a way of taking the architecture, which should be viewed from its side (showing the inverted pyramid triangle) and looking only from the top. Basically looking from the side is what engineers do, looking from the top is what end users do.

                            From the top, the inverted pyramid appears to be broad and stable, everything that the non-technical customer sees is that the servers, the one piece that they can physically grasp the purpose for, is "redundant" and "redundant" is a clever trick word that people assume means "reliable", but doesn't.

                            So non-technical customers can be easily convinced that they have something reliable, and that all of the extra cost is to magically make that reliability happen. When, in reality, they are looking from the wrong angle and all of the risks have been cleverly hidden until after the sale has been completed.

                            And it seems as though the professor is looking from the top down, and not realizing this is all riding on the single, most fragile part of the whole thing.

                            Right, like an end user rather than like an IT person.

                            Or as an IT Buyer rather than as an IT Pro.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • thwrT
                              thwr @Obsolesce
                              last edited by

                              @tim_g said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                              @kelsey said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                              0_1516817204394_Capture12.PNG

                              Now with Hyperconvergence, the above example uses local storage inside of physical host #1 and physcal host #2, using some kind of software (like StarWind vSAN or Microsoft's Storage Spaces Direct) that treats the storage in each Host as a single pool of shared storage. (like how in your picture the "storage server" is portrayed, but tha twould go away and would be inside of each physical host)

                              This way, you have no single point of storage failure.

                              If host 1 goes down, all data is also on host 2 where everything can continue running after the VMs fail over. Same with if Host2 goes down.

                              Here's a nice diagram from StarWind, which I've taken without asking. Please forgive me @KOOLER 😉

                              alt text

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                              • DustinB3403D
                                DustinB3403
                                last edited by DustinB3403

                                @scottalanmiller video here can help explain the difference between IT Buyers and IT Pros, but simply put Buyers don't need to know how everything is set to work together, that is the IT Pros job.

                                Youtube Video

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • K
                                  kelsey @Obsolesce
                                  last edited by

                                  @tim_g hi is there a website about scalable for information

                                  scottalanmillerS ObsolesceO Reid CooperR 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • scottalanmillerS
                                    scottalanmiller @kelsey
                                    last edited by

                                    @kelsey said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                                    @tim_g hi is there a website about scalable for information

                                    In a general sense, or related to a specific product or architecture?

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

                                      @kelsey said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                                      @tim_g hi is there a website about scalable for information

                                      I'm not sure what you're asking.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • Reid CooperR
                                        Reid Cooper @kelsey
                                        last edited by

                                        @kelsey said in Virtualization and HA, Scalability:

                                        @tim_g hi is there a website about scalable for information

                                        Pretty much any hyperconvergence vender will have info on their site.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • stacksofplatesS
                                          stacksofplates
                                          last edited by

                                          So there's another way I don't think I've seen anyone mention. That's doing application level HA. Rather than relying on the hosts to replicate data between each other, you just run multiple instances of a service. Then you have some kind of scheduler decide where the VM needs to live. That could be a person (if you're manually building), your orchestration tool by just defining which machine you want it to run on, or programmatically (like with cloud infrastructure). Then you can use a service discovery tool like Consul to register that service and have it added to your load balancer. Consul also does health checks that you script (for instance if you get anything other than a 200 response from a site it's unhealthy) and then it will auto remove it from the pool of available systems.

                                          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • stacksofplatesS
                                            stacksofplates
                                            last edited by

                                            There's also the container schedulers and service discovery tools like Kubernetes. You define how many pods you want running and Kubernetes handles where all of those should run and takes care of ensuring that many exist. If one goes down, it automatically brings another up in it's place.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 3 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post