Help choosing replacement Hyper-V host machines and connected storage



  • @JohnFromSTL said:

    And there are not many servers which have that amount of local storage.

    Correct, that is why I mentioned the R730xd, because it is one of the biggest local storage devices on the market.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    Dell PowerEdge R910 are monster servers but lack a lot of storage options. How is your CPU utilization? That is going to be the killer as those are quad processor systems. So even though they are two generations old, they are twice the size of normal servers. You are going to be looking at the Dell R730xd loaded to get the storage and the CPU that you need to come in around where you were before. That's not going to be possible, I don't think, in your price envelope.

    Host01 hovers around 9-10% CPU and 55% memory utilization.



  • @JohnFromSTL said:

    Host01 hovers around 9-10% CPU and 55% memory utilization.

    Which CPUs and how many do you have in that host?

    How much memory is in that host?



  • I currently have a Dell R720xd running Hyper-V 2012R2. It works really really well. Not sure on the price tag, but that is a nicely built system. Raid controller can do RAID 10, and RAID 6 in addition to the others... Add ram to meet your needs.



  • @dafyre said:

    I currently have a Dell R720xd running Hyper-V 2012R2. It works really really well. Not sure on the price tag, but that is a nicely built system. Raid controller can do RAID 10, and RAID 6 in addition to the others... Add ram to meet your needs.

    We have a monster R720xd with 128GB too. Sweet machine. R730xd has even bigger CPU options.



  • @dafyre said:

    Raid controller can do RAID 10, and RAID 6 in addition to the others.

    There are others?

    That controller has a 1GB cache too, which is important, AND has CacheCade built in. The R730xd loses the CacheCade option.



  • @scottalanmiller 😛 RAID 1, most notably... But I didn't want to mention RAID-5 spits on the floor.



  • If the R910 is maxing out at, say, 20% CPU, then my guess is that an R720xd will do the trick to take over its load. The R720xd has two, faster procs than the R910. Not only are the individual procs faster, but by moving from quad procs to dual procs you gain a small amount of efficiency just from that one move. So faster procs and more efficient proc usage and then cutting the total number of procs in half.... seems like you will be okay.



  • Memory is really going to be the biggest thing to start with here for capacity planning. Once we know that number, we will have something strong to work with.


  • Vendor

    @dafyre said:

    I'd definitely recommend reaching out to the Scale Computing guys (are there any on here?) here or either on SW. For information about pricing. It would be new kit and would last you several years. I think they can do 2 node setups as well.

    (www.scalecomputing.com)

    Scale needs 3 nodes, they don't have anything to install on existing servers like OP has and Scale has no Hyper-V support.


  • Vendor

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @JohnFromSTL said:

    Due to our size and budget constraints we purchase refurbished equipment, which are typically 2-3 years old. Whichever solution I end up with needs to last 3-4 additional years.

    Refurb is good. @xByteSean is around to help out with that. As is @ryan-from-xbyte

    xBytes allows people to get Dell quality @ SuperMicro price 🙂



  • @KOOLER said:

    @scottalanmiller said:

    @JohnFromSTL said:

    Due to our size and budget constraints we purchase refurbished equipment, which are typically 2-3 years old. Whichever solution I end up with needs to last 3-4 additional years.

    Refurb is good. @xByteSean is around to help out with that. As is @ryan-from-xbyte

    xBytes allows people to get Dell quality @ SuperMicro price 🙂

    That's a great way to look at it.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @JohnFromSTL said:

    @Minion-Queen said:

    NTG can help with the Scale questions so ask away!

    Any idea on starting price?

    Did I miss your total memory needs? How much memory are you using added all up?

    Host01:
    CPU: (4) - Xeon X7350 @ 2.93GHz
    RAM: (24) - 4GB DIMM 96GB RAM installed
    RAID: PERC 5/i (RAID-5)
    HDD: (5) - 300GB Hitachi Ultrastar 15K600 HUS156030VLS60 15k RPM 16MB Cache SAS 6Gb/s 3.5"

    Host02:
    CPU: (4) - Xeon X7350 @ 2.93GHz
    RAM: (24) - 4GB DIMM 96GB RAM installed
    RAID: PERC 5/i (Msft Storage Spaces)
    HDD: (5) - 1TB Seagate Constellation ES.3 ST1000NM0023 7200 RPM 128MB Cache SAS 6Gb/s 3.5"



  • @KOOLER said:

    Scale needs 3 nodes, they don't have anything to install on existing servers like OP has and Scale has no Hyper-V support.

    Scale would be a change of direction. No need for John to manage his hypervisor or storage. Everything in a single package, ready to go.



  • It's good to see this thread with more legs over here on Mango than on SW.

    Here is the interesting thing going on with the Dell generations now. We see the 11th gen still popular (R510s and R710s) if you only need 6-core CPUs. If you need 8-cores, then we see people skipping the 12th generation and going on to the 13th generation servers like the R730xd. The newer CPUs are so powerful at the low end and therefore so inexpensive, it is hard to justify other the 12th generation. There are some exceptions if you are okay with E5-2600 version 1 CPUs. That market is crashing and you can find some deals.

    This is why we encourage people to call us so we can walk through the options in the secondary market. It is very different than buying directly through Dell.



  • @JohnFromSTL said:

    RAID: PERC 5/i (RAID-5)

    Well fixing that will be the first thing 🙂 We can do RAID 6 on the new servers.



  • @ryan-from-xbyte said:

    It's good to see this thread with more legs over here on Mango than on SW.

    FTW!



  • @ryan-from-xbyte said:

    The newer CPUs are so powerful at the low end and therefore so inexpensive, it is hard to justify other the 12th generation.

    Except for when you are building storage devices. The R720xd really shines where CPU makes no difference.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    If the R910 is maxing out at, say, 20% CPU, then my guess is that an R720xd will do the trick to take over its load. The R720xd has two, faster procs than the R910. Not only are the individual procs faster, but by moving from quad procs to dual procs you gain a small amount of efficiency just from that one move. So faster procs and more efficient proc usage and then cutting the total number of procs in half.... seems like you will be okay.

    You don't even need to go with a R720xd when comparing the R910. You can go with a R620 and get 10x2.5" drives. Cluster a couple of those together and you are far better off than getting an R910 and you will save a fortune on power.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @JohnFromSTL said:

    RAID: PERC 5/i (RAID-5)

    Well fixing that will be the first thing 🙂 We can do RAID 6 on the new servers.

    Yeah, it was great when it was new...7 Years ago! I keep waiting for something to fail on these servers.



  • @JohnFromSTL said:

    RAM: (24) - 4GB DIMM 96GB RAM installed

    Matching or beating that will be easy. Even the older R720 / R720xd commonly came with 128GB. So no problem getting more than enough for you.


  • Vendor

    @StrongBad said:

    @KOOLER said:

    Scale needs 3 nodes, they don't have anything to install on existing servers like OP has and Scale has no Hyper-V support.

    Scale would be a change of direction. No need for John to manage his hypervisor or storage. Everything in a single package, ready to go.

    I cannot say better!



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @ryan-from-xbyte said:

    The newer CPUs are so powerful at the low end and therefore so inexpensive, it is hard to justify other the 12th generation.

    Except for when you are building storage devices. The R720xd really shines where CPU makes no difference.

    If you don't need CPU performance and only need storage, I would recommend the R510. If you need the spindles, then the 24x2.5" R720xd would be a good fit. For raw capacity, the R510 will give you a cheaper option.



  • @ryan-from-xbyte said:

    You don't even need to go with a R720xd when comparing the R910. You can go with a R620 and get 10x2.5" drives. Cluster a couple of those together and you are far better off than getting an R910 and you will save a fortune on power.

    He's going to need LFF drives, I think, for this. He needs 16TB per node, from what I can tell, which is pretty big. If we have 2TB NL-SAS drives in RAID 6 that will require ten LFF bays just to hit the 16TB usable number.



  • @ryan-from-xbyte said:

    If you don't need CPU performance and only need storage, I would recommend the R510. If you need the spindles, then the 24x2.5" R720xd would be a good fit. For raw capacity, the R510 will give you a cheaper option.

    For storage capacity the R510 could definitely do it. I think that the R720xd with the 12x LFF drive option is probably where he needs to be. Enough drive capacity to do the 16TB usable and the improved CPU performance without breaking the bank.



  • @scottalanmiller said:

    @ryan-from-xbyte said:

    You don't even need to go with a R720xd when comparing the R910. You can go with a R620 and get 10x2.5" drives. Cluster a couple of those together and you are far better off than getting an R910 and you will save a fortune on power.

    He's going to need LFF drives, I think, for this. He needs 16TB per node, from what I can tell, which is pretty big. If we have 2TB NL-SAS drives in RAID 6 that will require ten LFF bays just to hit the 16TB usable number.

    I could probably shave 2-3TB off the SQL and Oracle VMs. I've included more just in case we need the space as databases are migrated from one version to another.



  • @JohnFromSTL said:

    I could probably shave 2-3TB off the SQL and Oracle VMs. I've included more just in case we need the space as databases are migrated from one version to another.

    You don't want to cut these things too closely.



  • One thing we have not considered is database storage performance. Yes we can get what we need by going with NL-SAS or even SATA (ugh) on RAID 6 and that will be pretty decent for read performance, but write performance will be really weak, especially for a database.



  • What about 10K SAS drives? Are any available that are big enough for that? What about 1.8TB 10K SAS?



  • Moving from 2TB drives up to 4TB RE drives won't hit 10K RPM per drive but the move from RAID 6 to RAID 10 will help a lot with database performance.

    http://www.amazon.com/SAS-Enterprise-Hard-Drive-WD4001FYYG/dp/B0090UGQ2C

    $203 for a 4TB RE SAS drive.