New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster



  • @scottalanmiller said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @DustinB3403 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @scottalanmiller said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @JaredBusch Its all me with my company.

    What's their plan if you are sick, hit by a bus, get a better offer elsewhere, etc.?

    With the Scale, they pick up the phone and get 100% support instantly. With a built it yourself solution sure, they could call some of us, and hey, we'd love that. But it's not quite the same as having primary vendor support for the entire stack instantly.

    I'm assuming this is a 1 man band.

    You mean, one man total and if he gets sick the company would just evaporate regardless of if there was support or not?

    Yeah, sick or hit by a bus.



  • I love Scale, but they are not the right solution for everything. They definitely do not sound like the right solution here.

    Honestly, move your stuff hosted and take the hit to cancel your fiber services.

    Choose a solution with geo redundancies and such.

    Either that, or pay for your support renewal and plan the exit in 5 years when the contracts term.



  • @scottalanmiller said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @DustinB3403 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    If you are familiar with Hyper-V and require Hyperconvergence, why not use Hyper-V and StarWind vSAN?

    Absolutely free and scalable, support may be a bit more difficult but I'm sure the support costs are reasonable.

    He might be familiar, but he's also been on KVM for the last three years. So that might be a factor.

    He's been on Scale for the past 3 years, with support. Using it is vastly different than maintaining it when you have 100% support to 0% support because of finances.

    If the goal is to use commodity hardware (which he has) and require a HC solution that costs nothing additional (besides setup and maintenance time) StarWind vSAN seems to be the option.

    He could of course use XenServer and HALizard as well if he wanted.



  • So assuming all that is correct, and there are moderately okay servers to work with (710 are pretty old, that's our retired lab stuff here, too old to really bother running typically.)

    There are three key options, all are pretty equal in overall production readiness. The differences are in a few small features, how support is obtained, how much support costs, and how much you like the interfaces.

    1. KVM with Gluster, CEPH, StarWind, etc. (You are calling this oVirt, but oVirt isn't the important part of the stack.)
    2. XCP-NG this has its own clustered shared storage, you don't use a third party.
    3. Hyper-V with StarWind

    That's it. That's the list. ESXi is off the table, you don't have the funds for it. Leaves those three. You CAN use other options, like KVM with DRBD, but it's not practical or easy. These are the three reasonable choices.



  • @JaredBusch said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    Either that, or pay for your support renewal and plan the exit in 5 years when the contracts term.

    This is almost certainly the right choice. It is in place, it is supported, and it gives you years of guaranteed functionality to get yourself to cloud where you need to be.

    Anything you build yourself you are going to be on the hook for hardware replacements as you go and it is still just a hold out till you can cancel the services you have and get to cloud. But you'll have to keep investing in new hardware to keep it working once you are dependent on it. The drives in those old R510s are likely to die pretty often once they go back into use, that could get quite costly, quite quickly. Especially if they are SAS.



  • @scottalanmiller said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    So assuming all that is correct, and there are moderately okay servers to work with (710 are pretty old, that's our retired lab stuff here, too old to really bother running typically.)

    Just reading this thread top-to-bottom and wondered if anyone would mention that. OP is running 10 year old servers so the risk of downtime due to component failure has become exponentially greater.
    I'm not certain if I'd be more comfortable having an HA setup between 3 very old servers or no HA on a new server (with warranty) myself...



  • @manxam said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    I'm not certain if I'd be more comfortable having an HA setup between 3 very old servers or no HA on a new server (with warranty) myself...

    Totally agree. But one costs money and the other he has, so I get that. But it's not going to be super reliable. Three really old machines, all past standard retirement, without warranty or support, but with HA on top. It's not horrible, but it isn't great. But the failure rate on components could make it rather costly to maintain. Plus the higher cost of power consumption doesn't help.



  • If the three R710 servers are identical then use StarWind VSAN for the HA/VM setup and iSCSI Target the D2D4324-G2?



  • @PhlipElder : Not intimately familiar with SW's vSAN only having tried it a few times years ago, but I assume you're suggesting using the servers for compute and HP for storage? Doesn't that completely eliminate HA as you now have a single point of failure that will affect 3 servers?



  • @manxam vSAN is a hyper-converged setup with local storage being used on each node to provide HA storage for the compute.

    The iSCSI Target on the standalone unit could be for backups, archival storage, or any other storage requirement that comes to mind.



  • @PhlipElder : Thanks for the clarification!



  • @PhlipElder will look into that as well.



  • @manxam said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @PhlipElder : Not intimately familiar with SW's vSAN only having tried it a few times years ago, but I assume you're suggesting using the servers for compute and HP for storage? Doesn't that completely eliminate HA as you now have a single point of failure that will affect 3 servers?

    Absolutely no one here has or will suggest anything that involved external high risk storage. All of us are trying to get you to some form of hyperconvergence which by definition means that the storage is local and shared.





  • Meh, I don’t see the issue. Those are just standard Dell servers, oldie in truth. Sell it in bundle and buy a new R740 with mission critical support. You can get a very convenient quote that include VMware and Veeam. The latest Veeam (9.5u4) can do native S3 (and S3-like) archive tiering and support direct restore to both Azure and AWS.
    If we’re talking about steady-state workloads, on-premise or colo is always cheaper than IaaS. Oh, don’t forget that with the new iDrac/iLO you can treat the server effectively as a colo machine with all the good stuff like remote KVM, proactive support, remote automated installation etc., all with good html5 interface. Yes, that crappy activex/java is gone.



  • @Francesco-Provino the issue he needs something today, and that won't cost him anything today.

    It is a good option for sure but I don't believe he is wanting to spend money. But if he was going to look at purchasing something with warranty, look at xbyte.com



  • @Francesco-Provino said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    Meh, I don’t see the issue. Those are just standard Dell servers, oldie in truth. Sell it in bundle and buy a new R740 with mission critical support. You can get a very convenient quote that include VMware and Veeam. The latest Veeam (9.5u4) can do native S3 (and S3-like) archive tiering and support direct restore to both Azure and AWS.
    If we’re talking about steady-state workloads, on-premise or colo is always cheaper than IaaS. Oh, don’t forget that with the new iDrac/iLO you can treat the server effectively as a colo machine with all the good stuff like remote KVM, proactive support, remote automated installation etc., all with good html5 interface. Yes, that crappy activex/java is gone.

    If he sells what he has, he has nothing to run on in the mean time 🙂



  • So are far as warranty, I get it. I need that. However the cost of new equipment at the present time is out of my budget. I would love to sell my scale server, But I have to have something else built. Scale for me is designed for small business, Not hosting companies.



  • @mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    So are far as warranty, I get it. I need that. However the cost of new equipment at the present time is out of my budget. I would love to sell my scale server, But I have to have something else built. Scale for me is designed for small business, Not hosting companies.

    Why do you have one then?



  • I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.



  • @mroth911 you've yet to state why you need all of this uptime, besides from the sunk cost issues that have been discussed.

    It would be cheaper for you to just turn off the power on these systems and host them on a service like Vultr and literally sell all of your equipment.



  • @DustinB3403 I can not do that!. I have two 5 year terms with fiber. It would lost me like 80k per ISP to cancel.



  • @mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.

    So it was highly recommended 3 years ago, and now it's no longer what you need? I don't understand how you could afford it three years ago, but not now? Is your income lower now than 3 years ago?



  • @mroth911 but you can continue to afford the electric, cooling and internet for this business?

    You can not liquidate everything, move the hosting to something cheaper than what you can provide yourself and save money in the long haul?

    Really? It makes more fiscal sense to setup, manage, maintain (purchase replacement parts) and pay for warranty on your own hardware than it does to send this off to a vps or cloud provider.

    Seriously, WTF.



  • @Dashrender said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.

    So it was highly recommended 3 years ago, and now it's no longer what you need? I don't understand how you could afford it three years ago, but not now? Is your income lower now than 3 years ago?

    If he is making less money than he was 3 years ago, he should liquidate as quickly as possible and find cheaper and better alternatives to hosting his clients cpanel websites on-premise.

    This topic is so F'd.



  • Listen guys things have changed in my life that with out me air my dirty laundry out here forbid me to do what is considered "Industry Standard". This is something that I would like to do. I totally get you guys are right on liquidating my stuff. I am not going to get nearly what i would get to pay off the charges of canceling the contracts. For me to move my clients off my machines would be very time consuming. I will no longer post! forget the topic.



  • No one has said to cancel the contracts, not for the fiber or power or any of it.

    We've recommended you simply don't host any of this locally.

    Migrating what is a VM already today to a cloud provider is a few minute process at best.

    Does it add some cost? Sure but you will save that cost by having the server room lights turned off. AC set to a not so cold temp, power for the servers.

    You're still fucked when it comes to the contracts for the next 5 years.

    But moving these to a better alternative will be better for you, less effort for you, less cost for you (hardware, electricity, cooling).



  • @mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    So are far as warranty, I get it. I need that. However the cost of new equipment at the present time is out of my budget. I would love to sell my scale server, But I have to have something else built. Scale for me is designed for small business, Not hosting companies.

    Yeah, that's what I was saying. You can't sell one and wait to get another. You'd have a service gap of an indefinite time in between.

    That's correct, Scale is not a hosting platform. All hyperconvergence is built for LOB apps. Modern web apps should never be on hyperconvergence.

    The problem here is that your oVirt proposed solution is the same as the Scale, though. It's built with the same limitations and goals.



  • @mroth911 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    I was working with a guy at my previous temp job and he recommended them highly.

    They are absolutely fantastic. But not for that kind of use case.

    Did you ask for advice that included high availability at the platform level? Or advice on how to design a full hosting business?

    The reason that I ask is because if you asked the former, they are easily the best advice. But that question doesn't suit the needs of the latter.

    I suspect that this wasn't asked correct because of how this thread was approached. You started by asking about building an oVirt cluster... which is going down the same path as the Scale. It might be okay for your needs, but it isn't really stepping back and addressing the needs fully, even within the scope of what you have assuming that you are doing something like web hosting.

    If you are hosting modern web apps, then none of this makes sense. If you have to use the equipment that you have, and you are doing web hosting with something like LAMP or MEAN, for example, then no hyperconverged system is going to make any sense. It's not built for that.

    So part of the issue even now is that you are holding back the critical information that someone would need to give full advice. We don't know the necessary details to really help. We understand that you have certain hardware limitations, financial needs, need to not be down, etc. But that's not enough to help guide you to what is a logical way to use what is at your disposal going forward.

    From what I can tell, a proper clustered database and failover web front end is what you need. No platform cluster, no VM failover. Those concepts aren't appropriate for the assumed web hosting need.



  • @DustinB3403 said in New Infrastructure to Replace Scale Cluster:

    @mroth911 you've yet to state why you need all of this uptime, besides from the sunk cost issues that have been discussed.

    It would be cheaper for you to just turn off the power on these systems and host them on a service like Vultr and literally sell all of your equipment.

    That's probably not true. He should price that out, but if he is running 24 web hosts, likely on Vultr the cost would be absurd. Cloud is not as cheap as people think. Given that he is stuck with the links, already has the power, and already has hardware, chances are he is saving a thousand a month or more by not switching to cloud.

    Now, once his contracts are up, different story.