Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
. I'm honestly not sure though, I'd have expected them to mention it if it was going to be their focus in the future.
I got is straight from the horse's mouth at the time that I posted it. He definitely supersedes anyone you had on the phone.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
Agent versus agentless backups isn't a driving factor for me. I mentioned it because it's something I currently have. I'm not ideologically wedded to it.
Don't switch if you don't have to, but keep in mind that agent based is just as good and just as supported. So if the right options don't allow for agentless, don't sweat it.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I was looking at the appliance because the price I was quoted for just the VSAN product i.e. the software without any of the hardware, was almost as much as the appliance (and for less usable storage space).
I know Starwind do the free version but since it lacks the management application I was sceptical about using this due to the fact I'd need less technical people to support it in my absence.
In theory, that's how it should work. Basically the hardware is a wash and the software and support costs (it's all support costs actually) should be the same.
If Hyper-V is the right choice here, that's not a surprise. And if it is because it is part of the appliance, in a lot of ways you can ignore it. A server with a hypervisor is not exactly the same as an appliance with one. The appliance is a "black box" in theory and how it does its magic is of no concern, until it is exposed to you, if that makes sense.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I want to setup a resilient two node virtualisation host production system.
So the goal is not for high-availability, but for host redundancy?
If that's the case, two Hyper-V hosts with the built-in replication just works, and works well.
Just keep in mind that going that direction, you could have between 30 seconds and 15 minutes of permanent data loss should you decide to spin up a replica if primary host dies. (unplanned fail-over)
However, planned-failover is a nice to have if live migration isn't suitable.
Being all Linux guests, no need to worry about licensing (so long as there's no software running on top of it with weird restrictions).
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
If Hyper-V is the right choice here, that's not a surprise. And if it is because it is part of the appliance, in a lot of ways you can ignore it. A server with a hypervisor is not exactly the same as an appliance with one. The appliance is a "black box" in theory and how it does its magic is of no concern, until it is exposed to you, if that makes sense.
Yes that's how I've been trying to think about the appliance. Also since it comes with Active Support from Starwind, in theory my worry about less technical people having to support this when I'm away becomes less relevant. In fact, theoretically I would barely need to support it
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
If Hyper-V is the right choice here, that's not a surprise. And if it is because it is part of the appliance, in a lot of ways you can ignore it. A server with a hypervisor is not exactly the same as an appliance with one. The appliance is a "black box" in theory and how it does its magic is of no concern, until it is exposed to you, if that makes sense.
Yes that's how I've been trying to think about the appliance. Also since it comes with Active Support from Starwind, in theory my worry about less technical people having to support this when I'm away becomes less relevant. In fact, theoretically I would barely need to support it
Yup, that's a great way to go for exactly that purpose.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
in conversation with Starwind about their Hyper Converged App
Oh so he doesn't already have the hardware?
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I want to setup a resilient two node virtualisation host production system.
So the goal is not for high-availability, but for host redundancy?
If that's the case, two Hyper-V hosts with the built-in replication just works, and works well.
Just keep in mind that going that direction, you could have between 30 seconds and 15 minutes of permanent data loss should you decide to spin up a replica if primary host dies. (unplanned fail-over)
However, planned-failover is a nice to have if live migration isn't suitable.
Being all Linux guests, no need to worry about licensing (so long as there's no software running on top of it with weird restrictions).
Yes HA would be nice but I suspect we don't really need it. However when it's available (see what I did there?) for a price that doesn't break the budget then it becomes tempting.
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
in conversation with Starwind about their Hyper Converged App
Oh so he doesn't already have the hardware?
He does not.
-
May be better to to go with SW's Appliance then, if the cost comparison makes sense.
-
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
May be better to to go with SW's Appliance then, if the cost comparison makes sense.
It makes the choice between a) getting the appliance and b) getting the hardware myself and buying the Starwind VSAN stuff myself, very easy. The appliance is much better value.
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@obsolesce said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
I want to setup a resilient two node virtualisation host production system.
So the goal is not for high-availability, but for host redundancy?
If that's the case, two Hyper-V hosts with the built-in replication just works, and works well.
Just keep in mind that going that direction, you could have between 30 seconds and 15 minutes of permanent data loss should you decide to spin up a replica if primary host dies. (unplanned fail-over)
However, planned-failover is a nice to have if live migration isn't suitable.
Being all Linux guests, no need to worry about licensing (so long as there's no software running on top of it with weird restrictions).
Yes HA would be nice but I suspect we don't really need it. However when it's available (see what I did there?) for a price that doesn't break the budget then it becomes tempting.
Here's the thing... it's basically free. Once you want the support from SW, it's free to have HA. If you want to do free Starwind, it's free. Basically, no matter what set of factors you go with, HA ends up being free within the context. It's not something you pay for (outside of the Vmware world.) So while it is important to understand it is a "nice to have", it's also important to remember that you should always get it and don't settle for less because it's always there for free.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
Right, but then as you mentioned before this won't apply then:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
Yes that's how I've been trying to think about the appliance. Also since it comes with Active Support from Starwind, in theory my worry about less technical people having to support this when I'm away becomes less relevant. In fact, theoretically I would barely need to support it
-
I don't knwo what the cost differences are here in your situation or all the details, all options seem viable.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Can you do SW vSAN on Linux now or must you use their appliance?
-
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@scottalanmiller said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
@doyler3000 said in Hyper-V replication, Starwind, or something else?:
But buying the hardware (2 nodes) myself and just putting a free Hypervisor on there (Hyper-V or KVM) with replication would save a decent whack of money..
But in that situation, you can still do HA for free. Why do the lesser replication if the for the same cost you can do HA?
Well I was working on the assumption that if I go the free route and I'm not paying for support then full HA will be more complicated and difficult to support (especially when I'm not around) than VM replication which for Hyper-V for instance seems to be almost just a click and forget sort of thing.
I don't think that that is true. I think most likely the opposite. Once set up, HA should be transparent. Making it easier to support, at least for the majority of circumstances. In case of massive failure of all nodes, then both the replication and the HA are gone and don't matter. So there is basically no real world case where the HA is more difficult once up on and running.
Well that's food for though. Thanks. If I go for full HA on my own hardware KVM definitely becomes an option.
Yeah, I think that the thing to avoid is the false middle choice. If you want support, then the appliance sounds like the slam dunk. if you want free, then KVM and Starwind seems like the logical choice. The middle "compromise" option is something humans naturally gravitate towards because we are drilled with terrible concepts like "all things in moderation" which is utter nonesense, that's just some trite saying someone made up, it's not some rule of the universe. A common marketing trick is to get an over the top best option, a crappy bad option, and an overpriced middle option with high margins. People jump at it because it is in the middle and the other two make it seem reasonable, no matter what it is.
In this case, Hyper-V's limitations and lacking HA seem reasonable given the cost of the appliance, that we forget that the KVM + HA option is also free and way better. No one is selling this option, but because of how it feels like a middle compromise, it gives the same psychological effect making it feel good, even when it is the one option that should be ruled out as not making sense.
Ruling out false options quickly helps with decision making. Because just leaving it in makes our brains do weird things.
