Stop Load Balancing VMs
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
If some company was worried about IOPS on their disks .....
VM load balancing doesn't even address that, CPU and memory only.
Ok, then yeah, slight over-provisioning makes way more sense!
-
Most SMBs over provision heavily anyway, at least in CPU. Memory they often do. It is disks where they always cut corners and often they cut corners because of trying to do things like load balancing.
This is a case where the attempt to leverage a performance feature, load balancing, is causing them to do exactly a set of things that hurts their performance.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Most SMBs over provision heavily anyway, at least in CPU. Memory they often do. It is disks where they always cut corners and often they cut corners because of trying to do things like load balancing.
This is a case where the attempt to leverage a performance feature, load balancing, is causing them to do exactly a set of things that hurts their performance.
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
-
@thanksaj said:
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
That's pretty light for a SW install. Normally we say a minimum of 6GB and 2 vCPU. Unless it is doing almost nothing, SW needs a lot of power to run well.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
That's pretty light for a SW install. Normally we say a minimum of 6GB and 2 vCPU. Unless it is doing almost nothing, SW needs a lot of power to run well.
LOL I was thinking the same.. SW needs a ton of resources to run well.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
That's pretty light for a SW install. Normally we say a minimum of 6GB and 2 vCPU. Unless it is doing almost nothing, SW needs a lot of power to run well.
Not from what I've seen. I would have provisioned no more than 3GB. The scans are mostly CPU intensive, not so much memory.
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
That's pretty light for a SW install. Normally we say a minimum of 6GB and 2 vCPU. Unless it is doing almost nothing, SW needs a lot of power to run well.
Not from what I've seen. I would have provisioned no more than 3GB. The scans are mostly CPU intensive, not so much memory.
but really...what have you seen in your illustrious career?
-
@Hubtech said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
That's pretty light for a SW install. Normally we say a minimum of 6GB and 2 vCPU. Unless it is doing almost nothing, SW needs a lot of power to run well.
Not from what I've seen. I would have provisioned no more than 3GB. The scans are mostly CPU intensive, not so much memory.
but really...what have you seen in your illustrious career?
I've seen plenty. I don't pretend to know it all, but every SW instance I've ever seen, it's CPU intensive on the scans but not that memory intensive.
-
I know that live load balancing is fun when you have to implement a backup solution, too. Or, at least, it sure can be. Maybe not all of the time, but every time I have come up against it it's a real nuisance.
-
@thanksaj said:
@Hubtech said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I've seen some very heavily overprovisioned servers spun up by engineers...like 5GB of RAM for a Server 2008 R2 server running nothing but SW...I think it was 1 vCPU with 2 core allocated too. I argued with the engineer on that one...
That's pretty light for a SW install. Normally we say a minimum of 6GB and 2 vCPU. Unless it is doing almost nothing, SW needs a lot of power to run well.
Not from what I've seen. I would have provisioned no more than 3GB. The scans are mostly CPU intensive, not so much memory.
but really...what have you seen in your illustrious career?
I've seen plenty. I don't pretend to know it all, but every SW instance I've ever seen, it's CPU intensive on the scans but not that memory intensive.
I don't pretend to know it all, either. Somehow, I just usually do.
-
@art_of_shred said:
I know that live load balancing is fun when you have to implement a backup solution, too. Or, at least, it sure can be. Maybe not all of the time, but every time I have come up against it it's a real nuisance.
If you are doing system level backups, it should work seamlessly or the load balancing is failing. But as for taking VM image backups, yeah, that's a lot more complicated for sure.
-
Yes, VM snapshots. Pain.
