Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing
-
Hyperconvergence is merging of the platform components into a single node: with hypervisor, storage, networking and generally management.
-
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
I see hyperconvergence as taking multiple nodes and making them closer to behaving more like one node (again, like Scale does).
But it's not. Using definitions like that, we are back to SAN being HC, which isn't the case.
But SAN is not like Scale. It only does storage. The Hyperconverged idea brings everything (virtualization, storage, networking, etc) under a single console...whether one node or 10. (Ha! I managed to not say single pane of glass, lol)...
No, but SAN meets the definition given. That's the thing, we have to be careful with the definition or we are just overlapping with other terms.
Okay, let's clearly define the term hyperconvergence.
Hyperconverged is a software and management concept in my head. It really has nothing to do with the underlying hardware or infrastructure.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@Dashrender said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
If you have 3 Hyper-v or ESXi or whatever all with their own storage, yet managed by a single console are you really HC?
Not sure what you are describing. Do you mean that they are not a cluster, just managed together? Or are they a single cluster?
For example, a non-HA Scale cluster maintains all features of HC, just not HA.
What is the point of non HA cluster? You're still managing each hosts load individually just through a single pane. Is the really HC then? I'd say no... Because to be HC all things have to looks like one giant thing, and the where and how it's running really don't matter.. i.e. normal Scale setup.
But if your remove the system self managing what work load is where, what vhds are where, then you are back to managing many things. With the exception of a single box, well because as already stated, a single box is HC, and always has been.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Hyperconvergence is merging the managing of the platform components into a single node: with hypervisor, storage, networking and management in a single system.
What do you mean by "single system"? Single management platform?
-
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Hyperconvergence is merging the managing of the platform components into a single node: with hypervisor, storage, networking and management in a single system.
What do you mean by "single system"? Single management platform?
I reworded as that was definitely weird.
-
@Dashrender said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
What is the point of non HA cluster? You're still managing each hosts load individually just through a single pane.
Why do you think that? HA means high availability, it doesn't imply that the loads aren't clustered and managed as a single thing. Just look at Scale.
-
@Dashrender said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
What is the point of non HA cluster? .
Same as an HA cluster but when you don't need HA. That's like asking what's the point of a non-HA server. The point is to run workloads in a good way with minimal effort. HC is about good design. HA is about high availability. HC makes HA easy, but the two are not related.
-
@Dashrender said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Is the really HC then? I'd say no... Because to be HC all things have to looks like one giant thing, and the where and how it's running really don't matter.. i.e. normal Scale setup.
Absolutely it is HC still. And your description says why. Just like Scale without HA still "looks like one giant thing, and the where and how it's running really don't matter."
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Hyperconvergence is merging of the platform components into a single node: with hypervisor, storage, networking and generally management.
Using this definition though, a Scale cluster isn't hyperconverged. Because it has more than one node.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Hyperconvergence is merging the managing of the platform components into a single node: with hypervisor, storage, networking and management in a single system.
What do you mean by "single system"? Single management platform?
I reworded as that was definitely weird.
lol. Thank you.
-
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Hyperconvergence is merging of the platform components into a single node: with hypervisor, storage, networking and generally management.
Using this definition though, a Scale cluster isn't hyperconverged. Because it has more than one node.
Nope, the definition doesn't define the number of nodes that you can have, only that all of the pieces are in one node. Scale certainly meets that definition, even their management interface is on every node.
-
Merging components into a single node doesn't stop you from scaling horizontally to other nodes. But EACH node must have the stack collapsed onto it. That's the key.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Merging components into a single node doesn't stop you from scaling horizontally to other nodes. But EACH node must have the stack collapsed onto it. That's the key.
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
-
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Merging components into a single node doesn't stop you from scaling horizontally to other nodes. But EACH node must have the stack collapsed onto it. That's the key.
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
It is often considered to be hyperconverged. The only thing that doesn't make it is Vcenter isn't on every node in the system.
-
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Merging components into a single node doesn't stop you from scaling horizontally to other nodes. But EACH node must have the stack collapsed onto it. That's the key.
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
Nothing, and it is. And they do.
-
@coliver said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Merging components into a single node doesn't stop you from scaling horizontally to other nodes. But EACH node must have the stack collapsed onto it. That's the key.
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
It is often considered to be hyperconverged. The only thing that doesn't make it is Vcenter isn't on every node in the system.
That's not a normal feature and almost no one considered that, or even the single pane of glass thing, to be hyperconvergence. It's about the architecture, not the GUI. The platform is hyperconverged.
-
@dafyre said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Merging components into a single node doesn't stop you from scaling horizontally to other nodes. But EACH node must have the stack collapsed onto it. That's the key.
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
Remember that other products like that, like Starwind, on Vmware are considered hyperconverged. That's how Nutanix started as well.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
Converged (The predecessor) and hyper converged systems have always included multiple nodes.
VCE (Which really founded the converged systems model) was primarily about converging the install/config and support operations. When you bought a vBlock it came factory pre-cabled in a Rack as a single unit. It solved a LOT of install problems based on people not knowing how to correctly plugin 80 cables if nothing else.
-
@John-Nicholson said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
@scottalanmiller said in Is HyperConvergence Even a Thing:
Then what stops a VMware setup with vSAN from being called hyperconverged?
Converged (The predecessor) and hyper converged systems have always included multiple nodes.
VCE (Which really founded the converged systems model) was primarily about converging the install/config and support operations. When you bought a vBlock it came factory pre-cabled in a Rack as a single unit. It solved a LOT of install problems based on people not knowing how to correctly plugin 80 cables if nothing else.
The definition was never about multiple nodes. it's just that people only talk about it in that context. Same with HC.
-
VCE (or any converged vendor) never offered a solution that leveraged local storage, or included only a single host.
Even looking at other CI stacks (FlexPod etc) no one ever did this and called it converged infrastructure.
Even within the HCI space the top 4-5 players never called it this (Scale doesn't call a single node HCI, VMware doesn't, Simplivity HPE do not, and Nutanix never have).
The analysts (Wikibon, IDC, Gartner) all love splitting hairs (ServerSAN was popular for a while with Wikibon, Gartner refused to consider anything that wasn't an appliance, and IDC stayed pretty neutral) all seem to be in agreement on things now.You (and really anyone) can call anything anything, but at some point you stand alone in calling a poptart a sandwich.
