Looking for virtualization advice
-
@kooler said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@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 per-core from Microsoft. Scale can't do anything to change MSFT licensing policy.
Right, I meant how do you count which cores apply.
-
@kooler 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.
It's changing...
https://www.starwindsoftware.com/starwind-manager
VMware-based appliances will probably stay with a vCenter + plug-in, but Hyper-V (and KVM soon, very soon) are getting own HTML5 GUI.
Nice
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
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.
The bolded last sentence is what it comes down to.
Find out how much an ITSP would be and do the math.
If it's less than $20k, I'd start with a single server for $6k with backup, and after the ITSP comes in and actually sees and understands your business needs and what data you have that is taking up all that space, they can recommend whether or not it's worth throwing up another node for failover/HA.
-
XenServer and Xen Orchestra could do this for the same hardware, and use the CR replication functionality so you're as current as every 1 minute. (assuming your storage and network can keep up).
Get outside support and not have to worry about a thing. . .
You could even just have a single server, and a backup target. If something happens to the working environment you'd simply restore.
It wouldn't be as fast as a Continuous Replication job, but it would be cost effective, and simple.
-
A lot to consider here. Thank you for everyone's input. I need to run all these suggestions by a few other people in my office to get a better idea of what is important to stakeholders. I can then ask more specific questions.
-
People always say that they don't want to manage the hypervisor and storage.... What is there to even manage? I've only used XS and Hyper-V, but every time I've ever set them up, they just run.... There is literally nothing to manage. Occasionally running updates is super simple on XS, an hour a month tops for 2 nodes. He's already planning for enough storage for the next 3 years, not like he's going to be upgrading that constantly, and if he does, just use move everything to the second node... Is there something I'm missing?
-
@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:
I need to run all these suggestions by a few other people in my office to get a better idea of what is important to stakeholders.
Money. No need to ask.
What's best for the company is to have their services and data available when needed, while spending appropriately to get that accomplished.
How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.
-
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.
He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.
-
@GaryP have you performed a Business Impact Analysis?
That would help you to determine what solutions are the only reasonable solutions (in terms of financial spend).
-
@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.
He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.
Maybe, maybe not.
-
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.
He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.
Maybe, maybe not.
Yes, I am talking about IT. I don't always agree with how decisions are made or what they are based on. Yes, it is usually money but also redundancy/DR are a consideration and who is going to support it.
-
@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.
He could be speaking with other members of the IT department.
Maybe, maybe not.
Yes, I am talking about IT. I don't always agree with how decisions are made or what they are based on. Yes, it is usually money but also redundancy/DR are a consideration and who is going to support it.
Right, but to Tim's point - every bit of that does and should boil down to money. Does the risk profile show the spend is appropriate, etc.
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@kooler said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@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 per-core from Microsoft. Scale can't do anything to change MSFT licensing policy.
Right, I meant how do you count which cores apply.
You control where things run, if you want to at least. So you only count the cores where you allow Windows to run.
-
@tim_g said in Looking for virtualization advice:
How this is done best is decided via the expertise of IT, not stakeholders.
Tim is correct and this can't be overstated. Once you run the math, you have the answer. If a stakeholder votes against the math.... that's sabotaging the company. If you have stakeholders doing that, you have bigger problems.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@GaryP have you performed a Business Impact Analysis?
That would help you to determine what solutions are the only reasonable solutions (in terms of financial spend).
If he lacks the info that he needs, then definitely. Speaking to others to determine the components for the math, yes makes total sense. Once you have those numbers and run them, then opinions should end and it's literally all math.
-
@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:
Yes, it is usually money but also redundancy/DR are a consideration and who is going to support it.
Either redundancy / DR is a money decision, or it's just emotional randomness that undermines the business. DR, performance, all that stuff comes down to profits and making money.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Looking for virtualization advice:
I'm a bit partial to Restoronix here, for obvious reasons.
I'm not sure I'd say that your bias for Restoronix is obvious. While after some digging around on the site I'm sure someone could find the reason, but to ensure transparency, this is a case where I'd say a flat out disclaimer of your role with Restoronix should be required each and every time you make the recommendation. Many others on the site (if not most) carry the "Vendor" tag when they participate to highlight this where in this case, you do not.
Btw, Restoronix may be the perfect solution, I'm not saying it isn't. But representing your product you may want to consider avoiding even the appearance of conflict.
For the OP who joined only a few days ago: https://www.mangolassi.it/post/324872
-
@garyp said in Looking for virtualization advice:
We are looking to virtualize the servers in the data center in our office. Since most of our applications run in two co-lo data centers, managed by a service provider, the data center in our office could almost be considered a remote office.
Currently we have mostly physical Windows servers (yes, I know it is 2017) in this data center consisting of:
Two file servers for a total of 7 TB
Security system server
HVAC system server
Warehouse conveyor control server
We need to add about 6 Linux servers for SIP and a telecom specific application.Ideally, we can move VMs to another host if one fails, but it doesn’t have to be instantaneous.
Current storage need is ~8 TB with room to grow to ~15 TB in the next 3-4 years. DAS, NAS, etc., whatever might work best for this situation.
Dell suggested a 3-2-1 architecture for over $100,000, which does not seem at all practical.
Another vendor suggested Dell’s VTRX with 3 M630 blades plus the storage.
We have started looking at HCI solutions, including Scale. StarWind and HPE SimpliVity as we do not the expertise in managing a hypervisor nor the time to manage it. Too many other projects and distractions.We will need some sort of DR solution. We will want an on-site backup and a copy going off-site to Azure, AWS or similar.
Suggestions?I've seen several business with similar requirement.
My suggestion for your scenario:
- KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
VMware essential just if you use solutions that are certified only with that platform. - Go with a just ONE Dell R740 with two 16-cores cpu, 576Gb of ram and 9x2Tb SAS ssd in raid 5. Prosupport 4h is fundamental in this configuration. You can have a machine like that for 20k$ or less (Dell just quote a pair of that for me)
- Buy a second, basic server and fill it with large spindles (raid10). Install Linux on it and made it a perfect backup target.
- Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.
I don't thing you need any sort of HA technology. You'll thank me later for the removed complexity.
- KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
-
@francesco-provino said in Looking for virtualization advice:
- KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
VMware essential just if you use solutions that are certified only with that platform.
KVM or Hyper-V are the only things to use IMO.
- Go with a just ONE Dell R740 with two 16-cores cpu, 576Gb of ram and 9x2Tb SAS ssd in raid 5. Prosupport 4h is fundamental in this configuration. You can have a machine like that for 20k$ or less (Dell just quote a pair of that for me)
This is just stupid expensive. Almost as bad as @scottalanmiller's recommendation for a Scale cluster. In fact I would by a $30k Scale cluster over something like this.
The only information we have form the OP is 2 file servers with a bunch of data. File Servers. This does not mean SSD, nor 576GB of RAM. The OP only needs 8 7.2K NL SAS drives in a RAID 10 to achieve 16TB of space. With a H7XX controller with 1GB or 2GB of cache, he will almost never see a performance constraint caused by the RAID array. Also, they OP is obviously a Windows shop based on the "add some Linux Servers" phrase. That means anything more than dual 8 core procs will immediately also call for an increase in Windows Server licensing. You suggestion means doubling their Windows server licensing.
- Buy a second, basic server and fill it with large spindles (raid10). Install Linux on it and made it a perfect backup target.
This is way to generic. A large part of this will depend on the hypervisor and also on retention needs.
- Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.
Likely the backup software can connect to this.
I don't thing you need any sort of HA technology. You'll thank me later for the removed complexity.
But for your proposed cost he is better off with a Scale cluster. The only reason I do not recommend it is because the hardware costs should not be anywhere close to a $30k Scale cluster.
- KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
-
@jaredbusch said in Looking for virtualization advice:
@francesco-provino said in Looking for virtualization advice:
- KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
VMware essential just if you use solutions that are certified only with that platform.
KVM or Hyper-V are the only things to use IMO.
- Go with a just ONE Dell R740 with two 16-cores cpu, 576Gb of ram and 9x2Tb SAS ssd in raid 5. Prosupport 4h is fundamental in this configuration. You can have a machine like that for 20k$ or less (Dell just quote a pair of that for me)
This is just stupid expensive. Almost as bad as @scottalanmiller's recommendation for a Scale cluster. In fact I would by a $30k Scale cluster over something like this.
The only information we have form the OP is 2 file servers with a bunch of data. File Servers. This does not mean SSD, nor 576GB of RAM. The OP only needs 8 7.2K NL SAS drives in a RAID 10 to achieve 16TB of space. With a H7XX controller with 1GB or 2GB of cache, he will almost never see a performance constraint caused by the RAID array. Also, they OP is obviously a Windows shop based on the "add some Linux Servers" phrase. That means anything more than dual 8 core procs will immediately also call for an increase in Windows Server licensing. You suggestion means doubling their Windows server licensing.
- Buy a second, basic server and fill it with large spindles (raid10). Install Linux on it and made it a perfect backup target.
This is way to generic. A large part of this will depend on the hypervisor and also on retention needs.
- Use an agent-based backup software and upload anythig to s3.
Likely the backup software can connect to this.
I don't thing you need any sort of HA technology. You'll thank me later for the removed complexity.
But for your proposed cost he is better off with a Scale cluster. The only reason I do not recommend it is because the hardware costs should not be anywhere close to a $30k Scale cluster.
You are right, I took this configuration example because the vendor just quote it. Using the same single-server pattern, you can easily build a config that fit his needs (now I read them well) with 5-6k. The generic storage server as a backup target is just an advice against pre-made NAS.
- KVM should be your hypervisor of choice. It has NO limits whatsover on anything. XS is a great choice but with much less features.
