@Kelly The available virtual cores you can assign to a particular VM match the number of logical threads(for hyperthreading) on the nodes. If you have identically spec'd nodes there will be no restrictions put in place beyond that for the number of virtual CPUs you can assign to a particular VM.
The limit of number of virtual cores to the smallest amount of logical threads is specifically to prevent issues with over-provisioning so there are automatic limits put in place to prevent issues that would cause VMs to not be stable.
I'm really glad to hear you are purchasing a cluster and we look forward to working with you.
It started life on a bare metal 2003 R2 server in late 2007. Lived there until last year, when with the help of a friend who used to work for the now gobbled and displaced EHR company, he helped me migrate the entire thing to a Windows 2012 R2 VM. This VM is 750 GB total storage assigned, using around 640 GB. It's not growing anymore, pretty sure it's thin provisioned (it is, but it's expanded itself out to 716 GB).
This VM host has 1.1 TB of RAID 10 (8 drives 10K 300 GB).
Not exactly a Legion event, but we'll be at O'Fallon Brewery this evening from 6-9:30 with Barracuda. Feel free to stop in for a brew or two and learn a bit. I'll be talking community with attendees on the sidelines.
Tesla has donated two cars for test driving, although you would be a passenger along with a weekend Tesla giveaway!
Will end-users be able to grow slowly? IE: Grow from one node to 2... and then eventually buy a third?
or would it be a jump straight from 1 node to 3 nodes?
Unfortunately at this time there is no means of growing from one to two. The jump is from one to three and one node at a time from then on. This is because of the need of a witness to avoid split brain of the cluster. One node avoids this by not having high availabilty, three and more nodes handle this by always having a witness. At two nodes there are complications that do not exist otherwise. So at this time, there is no two node option.
Except, of course, if you were in a situation where two nodes was useful through replication. That works with two nodes.
But as we are constantly drilled by @scottalanmiller, most SMBs don't need HA. They can often afford hours, or even days of downtime.
I generally agree with you. Our local 911 center was down for something like 36 hours a couple weeks back, made my head spin that. It's just the edge case to support @scottalanmiller's rule.
They probably could have benefited from some better planning.
I'm guessing they had a plan, they just forwarded their phones to another 911 call center to handle the situation while they were down.
The county sheriff announced on the radio (yeah, I still listen to it when it's time for news), no 911 service, didn't even get the calls forwarded to a different 911 center. I mean, Wooster, OH and Wayne County are small, but you don't have 2 911 centers in the county at least? I would've thought the city and county would have one each, at least service doesn't get completely interrupted if one happens to go down, sheesh.
Actually, that doesn't surprise me at all that the only have one. What is surprising is that they didn't have agreements with the next county over to take over their calls in case of an outage. Call the phone company and just hard forward all calls to the next county... wow.. just wow.
Right, that is the logical way to go. Stark should have been able to handle those calls easily.