Looking for virtualization advice
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:
We have started looking at HCI solutions, including Scale. StarWind and HPE SimpliVity as we do not the expertise in managing a hypervisor nor the time to manage it.
That's the appropriate short list. Of those, @Scale is the one that is going to offload the most from your plate. Starwind provides HC but you are still managing the hypervisor on your own, separately. It's architecturally all together, but the management console is not.
He doesn't need hyperconvergence. Don't sell him something he does not need. There is no way to intelligently get 15TB of storage on a Scale box for a reasonable price compared to local storage.
He wants failover. HC is the only cost effective way of doing that at this scale.
No. He said he can fail over manually. no big rush.
He can have a second identical box setup with replication for way less than HC.
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
No. He said he can fail over manually. no big rush.
He can have a second identical box setup with replication for way less than HC.
No, he actually can't. In order to have enough storage to do failover, the costs are identical. You can propose that async failover is "easier" but you can't say it is cheaper. As HC is free in a two node setup, it's literally impossible to get cheaper than a Starwind two node solution without giving up the ability to failover to a second node. HC just does it faster without you needing to failover to an async replicant.
Any solution that you can do with async can have HC layered on with Starwind at no extra cost. So at that point it is a non-cost choice between the simpler async replication versus the more complex to set up full sync of hyperconvergence with the reduction in data loss from the async interval being eliminated.
-
But as he is looking to not be managing the hypervisor, this comes with costs and Scale is going to be the cheapest path to a fully managed hypervisor if he wants it from a vendor. Of course, it might be cheaper to bring in an ITSP to do the management and get a smaller solution. That's perfectly viable. But if the point is a managed product, I'm not aware of any way to get to the Scale level of simplicity without Scale.
-
@JaredBusch what he could do is something in the middle, like a single server without a replicant partner. And have a backup system that will let him run "live" during recovery or just do really rapid recovery. Then have a second server that lacks it's own storage or any amount of it and run from the recovery system until disks are moved or replaced or whatever. That would cut costs as he would run from the backup / DR system instead of from the second server during a recover phase. But it requires not having the full second node to fail over to.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@JaredBusch what he could do is something in the middle, like a single server without a replicant partner. And have a backup system that will let him run "live" during recovery or just do really rapid recovery. Then have a second server that lacks it's own storage or any amount of it and run from the recovery system until disks are moved or replaced or whatever. That would cut costs as he would run from the backup / DR system instead of from the second server during a recover phase. But it requires not having the full second node to fail over to.
Single server starts at $6k like I said. Scale starts at way more than that for 15TB.
Hyper-V has built in replication that takes almost no time to setup. It can even do a third tier extended replication.
So 2 servers would be $12k. Then it is only the setup time for Hyper-V Server. May be slightly more difficult than Scale's pretty web page, but it is far from difficult.
The backup costs are a wash as that is the same no matter what the hypervisor is.
-
So some quick numbers to help with comparisons. These are super rough on both sides.
For a two node system from xByte you are looking around $10-$12K if you want to have two nodes. If you forego the second node, which is often the smart thing to do, then it's the $5K-$6K more or less. Don't undersestimate the value in keeping things simple and not having failover. Very, very few companies need failover of any sort. Downtime is typically cheap.
Scale starts with three nodes and their starter node is $7,800 and too small for you. But likely all you need is a drive upgrade. You would be pretty small on the Scale side to meet your storage needs. My guess would be around $9,500 per node. So that's $28,500, I think.
It's way more than double the cost of doing two server nodes on your own directly. But it is also an appliance will full support for the entire stack rather than priced based on you doing your own support. That's really what you are paying for different between the two solutions. Both are fast enough and big enough to meet your technical needs. The question is how much of the "don't want to manage the hypervisor and storage" that you want to do.
-
@scottalanmiller also, @scale can go fuck off because they no longer have public pricing.
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@scottalanmiller also, @scale can go fuck off because they no longer have public pricing.
They do, not sure why the link to it isn't on that page. This is the link...
https://www.scalecomputing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/hc3-sales-brochure.pdf
I had to go searching for it.
-
And that price sheet has the HC5150D and HC1150D models that were just announced. So it is currently updated.
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
I had to go searching for it.
Not my job. It is their job to not turn me off. Which they did. fuck that.
-
@scottalanmiller They copyright was updated for 2017. Still not the point.
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@scottalanmiller They copyright was updated for 2017. Still not the point.
It has new models on it. Not just a copyright update. It's new prices. From like last month, I think. Pretty recent. The 5150D was just announced like one webinar ago.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@scottalanmiller They copyright was updated for 2017. Still not the point.
It has new models on it. Not just a copyright update. It's new prices. From like last month, I think. Pretty recent. The 5150D was just announced like one webinar ago.
Again, not the point. The point is they do not publicly publish it. They hide it.
They can go piss up a rope.
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
They can go piss up a rope.
Now there is one I've not heard before.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
They can go piss up a rope.
Now there is one I've not heard before.
How?
-
No idea, but I've never heard it.
-
Anyway, I love Scale's product, they need to fix that pricing link to not be hidden.
And back on topic.
$12k versus $30k is a huge difference.
-
Side note, how do you calculate cores for Server 2016 on a Scale system. Is it per node?
because I specifically spec'd that Xbyte system with 2x 8core procs because of Windows licensing
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
Side note, how do you calculate cores for Server 2016 on a Scale system. Is it per node?
because I specifically spec'd that Xbyte system with 2x 8core procs because of Windows licensing
It's the same as anything else. It's per node that you allow Windows to run on. So in a three node system you can choose Windows to run on or be allowed to run on any one, two or three nodes (or more if you bought more.) Windows licensing is "up to" sixteen cores per node in the minimum licensing. So unless you are exceeding that, it's just the base licensing.
