Negotiated Drive Speed
-
I have to warn you. The speeds I am about to talk about in this post are shocking. You may want to sit down.
I have an older DELL server. Has 3 "spinning rust" drives in a RAID5 array. (This server is from the days that was still thought of as OK.) It's been running fine, no error messages. I happen to notice when I walk by it (been happening for weeks) that one of the drive activity light is always on, unlike the other two drives that have blinking lights, like you would expect.
I log into DELL Server Manager, and the drive is fine. No errors. However, I notice that all the drives have a "Capable Speed" of 0.31 Gbps. The two drives that are blinking normally also have a negotiated speed of 0.31 Gbps. The "solid light" drive has a negotiated speed of 0.04 Gbps.
I know I need to replace this whole server, and this is one of the servers I will be moving over to the new server, but am waiting for Server 2016 to come out.
But for now ... would that explain the constant drive activity? Should I perhaps throw another drive in there as a hot spare and offline the one drive, and let the array rebuild to the new drive? Or with the age of these drives, I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to just let a sleep dog lie, and be ready to move it should the need arise. I have full backups of it.
-
If you have full backups, why not just do a P2V now and be done with it? It's clearly at risk, so should be addressed. But sounds like it is ready to be addressed, so instead of investing in the technical debt, why not invest in the future solution?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you have full backups, why not just do a P2V now and be done with it? It's clearly at risk, so should be addressed. But sounds like it is ready to be addressed, so instead of investing in the technical debt, why not invest in the future solution?
Well, I only have the one new server. If I do this, and then wait for Server 2016, I'll have to redo everything at that point. Granted, it's not a huge undertaking, but I would still need to back up the VM, clean install 2016, and restore the VM. So, not a huge undertaking.
That's why I am thinking about doing 2012 now. I can fix this "problem", and also get the other server moved over.
-
@BRRABill said:
Well, I only have the one new server. If I do this, and then wait for Server 2016, I'll have to redo everything at that point.
I'm confused by the connection here. What does doing a P2V here have to do with Windows?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm confused by the connection here. What does doing a P2V here have to do with Windows?
Oh, good point.
I'm purely a Windows guy.
Linux is on my horizon this year.
Are you suggesting.....that I.....delve in now??????
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm confused by the connection here. What does doing a P2V here have to do with Windows?
Oh, good point.
I'm purely a Windows guy.
Linux is on my horizon this year.
Are you suggesting.....that I.....delve in now??????
Well, that's good too, but wasn't what I was questioning.
What I'm questioning is what connection is there between doing a P2V and the availability of Windows? I don't know what OS you are running today, but we are talking about a P2V, not an OS migration.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What I'm questioning is what connection is there between doing a P2V and the availability of Windows? I don't know what OS you are running today, but we are talking about a P2V, not an OS migration.
I only have 1 new, modern server in my possession.
I have nothing running Hyper-V. Everything is physical right now. I have no place to host this P2V file.
-
@BRRABill said:
I have nothing running Hyper-V.
Why run Hyper-V? It's not the worst choice, but given the limitations and caveats versus XenServer, why is it on your radar?
-
@BRRABill said:
I only have 1 new, modern server in my possession.
That's all that you need, install XenServer and get going!
-
-
I disagree with @scottalanmiller that XS is the best choice. Hyper-V is simply easier and more supported by both the old school stack of vendors and also by consultants and MSPs across the country (world).
There are really good products in the pipeline that will tip this balance to XS, but that point is at least 12 months in the future from my point of view.
All of that aside though, you have a server. Install a damned hypervisor on it and P2V your failing system. There is no excuse for not doing this right now, today.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I disagree with @scottalanmiller that XS is the best choice. Hyper-V is simply easier and more supported by both the old school stack of vendors and also by consultants and MSPs across the country (world).
I just don't see it being easier. Just figuring out the licensing alone is more complicated than actually using XenServer, even thought the licensing itself is basically zero. Hyper-V is hard enough that you have to have hours of conversations around it just to understand how it works.
It might be "easy" to get up and running. But comparing getting Hyper-V installed to XenServer, I just don't see it on par. Pop in that XS install CD and I don't know anything easier.
-
After talking to @scottalanmiller a little today, I think the reason I thought Hyper-V was easier was because it was Windows based. (I was using the GUI version.) But I misunderstood how it worked, to be honest.
So between the non-GUI Hyper-V and XenServer, maybe XenServer is easier.
-
GUI being an example. Using Hyper-V on a server introduces the compication of either having a control VM (with licensing overhead and confusion and the actual system overhead and patching issues) that you then manage via RDP, which isn't idea. Or moving to PowerShell which is great, but not as easy. Or getting a third party tool, which is fine, but the free ones are very limiting and harder.
XenServer's "native" GUI is XenCenter and while it isn't the best, it is ridiculously simple. Just install on any Windows desktop and ta da, easier, more robust management for beginners than I've see on Hyper-V. And with lots of other benefits, too.
-
@BRRABill said:
So between the non-GUI Hyper-V and XenServer, maybe XenServer is easier.
Even GUI based, I think XenServer is easier. The Hyper-V GUI options are more convoluted, limited and confusing. Not bad, just not on par.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
GUI being an example. Using Hyper-V on a server introduces the compication of either having a control VM (with licensing overhead and confusion and the actual system overhead and patching issues) that you then manage via RDP, which isn't idea. Or moving to PowerShell which is great, but not as easy. Or getting a third party tool, which is fine, but the free ones are very limiting and harder.
XenServer's "native" GUI is XenCenter and while it isn't the best, it is ridiculously simple. Just install on any Windows desktop and ta da, easier, more robust management for beginners than I've see on Hyper-V. And with lots of other benefits, too.
You are adding complication by not using the users existing Windows desktop environment.
Yes if the company is not a Windows shop then these benefits of Hyper-V go poof.
But @BRRABill runs a Windows shop. The only quesiton then becomes are the desktops used by those who need to administer Hyper-V Windows 8.1+ or Windows 7. If it is a Windows 8.1+ desktop then all of the tools are natively included. You simply turn them on. RDP is the worst way to manage then after setup is complete.
-
@JaredBusch said:
You are adding complication by not using the users existing Windows desktop environment.
I'm don't understand this. I thought that I was doing exactly the opposite - making it easier by leveraging the existing Windows desktop environment.
Maybe I'm just missing how to do this easily with Hyper-V short of kludgy things like running a Windows Server VM for a GUI and then RDPing into it from a desktop.
-
@BRRABill said:
After talking to @scottalanmiller a little today, I think the reason I thought Hyper-V was easier was because it was Windows based. (I was using the GUI version.) But I misunderstood how it worked, to be honest.
So between the non-GUI Hyper-V and XenServer, maybe XenServer is easier.
Did you talk to anyone that lives in reality also? @scottalanmiller's perception of real world SMB IT is severely scewed from many others. The world does not exist in his perfect black and white perception of what should be done.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Yes if the company is not a Windows shop then these benefits of Hyper-V go poof.
That's where I'm confused. In Windows environments specifically, I find XenServer easier to use and Hyper-V more effort.
-
@JaredBusch said:
The only quesiton then becomes are the desktops used by those who need to administer Hyper-V Windows 8.1+ or Windows 7. If it is a Windows 8.1+ desktop then all of the tools are natively included. You simply turn them on. RDP is the worst way to manage then after setup is complete.
Ah okay, this must be what I'm missing. There is a Hyper-V management GUI that does not require a Hyper-V local GUI but is included with the desktop environment?
