Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
-
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
-
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
It happens, trust me. Does it happen more or less than a RAID card failing and taking everything with it? No idea beyond my direct experience, which is one of each.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
This used to be a big issue in my family too. No idea why it happened, but it did, all the way up until the XP days... then it tapered off.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
I feel like I've seen this like once.
-
@dafyre said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
This used to be a big issue in my family too. No idea why it happened, but it did, all the way up until the XP days... then it tapered off.
MS started working on storage stability a bit. It was pretty horrific for a long time.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@dafyre said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
This used to be a big issue in my family too. No idea why it happened, but it did, all the way up until the XP days... then it tapered off.
MS started working on storage stability a bit. It was pretty horrific for a long time.
Offline @dafyre mentioned it was in the DOS days, pre WIn9X mainly - but almost completely gone with XP.
that's probably why I didn't see it happen. I did start at a place with lots of Win3.11, but I guess we were lucky this just didn't happen to us.
-
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@scottalanmiller said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@dafyre said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@Dashrender said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@black3dynamite said in Splitting Array for Hypervisor on Hyper-V:
@JaredBusch
Configuring one big array and creating a partition for Hyper-V and another for the VMs is not common? Or keep the hypervisor and the VMs on one partition?It is not common, because the most common RAID adapters out there do not have the functionality to create partitions on the RAID array. We had a thread on this subject not too long ago in fact. If someone could find it and link it that would be great.
It is definitely a nice way to handle it if you can have the array split logically prior to installing the hypervisor.
You can still split the array up at the hypervisor install level.
Would there be any benefit to a split at the adapter level versus inside the array as partitions?
6/halfdozen.
At the controller level, the readability of the data side is not dependant on the hypervisor side being bootable. You simply boot to a USB media or something and read you data. t is a failure mitigation concept to me.
Not something that is going to make day to day any different
Time out - what?
If I create a single array as most RAID controllers only allow - and present that to my installation of Hyper-V, Hyper-V (assuming it works like install Windows Server - and I have to assume this because I've only ever installed Hyper-V twice, and most recently 2 years ago) then Hyper-V will allow you to create two partitions before installation begins. Assuming you install Hyper-V install one of them and your VMs into the other - what prevents you from booting to your aforementioned bootable media and gaining access to the VMs?
Heck, even if you just left it as a single large partition, why wouldn't booting to your bootable media still grant you access to the data?
As i said, 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other... Most of the time what you said is true. but losing the system that created the logical partitioning can always have a chance to lose everything.
That is still true for doing it at the RAID controller. just the point is moved.
Again - WHAT!?!?! I don't think I've ever seen an OS issue cause a partition failure before.
This used to be a big issue in my family too. No idea why it happened, but it did, all the way up until the XP days... then it tapered off.
MS started working on storage stability a bit. It was pretty horrific for a long time.
Offline @dafyre mentioned it was in the DOS days, pre WIn9X mainly - but almost completely gone with XP.
that's probably why I didn't see it happen. I did start at a place with lots of Win3.11, but I guess we were lucky this just didn't happen to us.
And outside of my family, that never seemed to be a common occurrence with most other folks either.
