ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Xen Server 6.5 + Xen Orchestra w. HA & SAN

    IT Discussion
    8
    112
    33.2k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • DashrenderD
      Dashrender @scottalanmiller
      last edited by

      @scottalanmiller said:

      @johnhooks said:

      Eh I thought I read somewhere that you said something like that. I must have just misread one of your $1000 per minute posts.

      Maybe it was the ten minute number. HA versus secondary server is a difference of normally about ten minutes of downtime.

      This is assuming some time of replication between the running and secondary servers?

      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @Dashrender
        last edited by

        @Dashrender said:

        @scottalanmiller said:

        @johnhooks said:

        Eh I thought I read somewhere that you said something like that. I must have just misread one of your $1000 per minute posts.

        Maybe it was the ten minute number. HA versus secondary server is a difference of normally about ten minutes of downtime.

        This is assuming some time of replication between the running and secondary servers?

        Or good backups. If you have a fast backup system, you can often restore quickly, too.

        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • DashrenderD
          Dashrender @scottalanmiller
          last edited by

          @scottalanmiller said:

          @Dashrender said:

          @scottalanmiller said:

          @johnhooks said:

          Eh I thought I read somewhere that you said something like that. I must have just misread one of your $1000 per minute posts.

          Maybe it was the ten minute number. HA versus secondary server is a difference of normally about ten minutes of downtime.

          This is assuming some time of replication between the running and secondary servers?

          Or good backups. If you have a fast backup system, you can often restore quickly, too.

          I suppose, but if 10 mins is your goal, I don't think backups are really in your game plan unless your VMs are pretty small, and few.

          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender said:

            I suppose, but if 10 mins is your goal, I don't think backups are really in your game plan unless your VMs are pretty small, and few.

            You adjust as needed. How many people have large critical workloads? Some, not many. Most can be getting production back on line as systems return to normal.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • scottalanmillerS
              scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              A pair of FC interfaces can restore nearly 2TB of backups in 10 minutes when needed. 😉

              DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                @scottalanmiller said:

                A pair of FC interfaces can restore nearly 2TB of backups in 10 minutes when needed. 😉

                What kind of drive system do you have behind that?

                Remember, most of us here are SMBs, we don't have FC - and if you're wanting to stick your hand up and say you have FC, before you post - do you have under 300 users? if not, just sit back down because you are not SMB (no matter what IBM or Norton Says).

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                  last edited by

                  @Dashrender said:

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  A pair of FC interfaces can restore nearly 2TB of backups in 10 minutes when needed. 😉

                  What kind of drive system do you have behind that?

                  Remember, most of us here are SMBs, we don't have FC - and if you're wanting to stick your hand up and say you have FC, before you post - do you have under 300 users? if not, just sit back down because you are not SMB (no matter what IBM or Norton Says).

                  FC isn't all that expensive these days, especially if you are doing host to host as there is no switching equipment involved. All you are adding are cards. If you were going to add 10GigE cards, FC is actually less effort and more performant for a backup. You'd be looking at pretty much break even on cost.

                  Pushing an SSH cache on a restore machine is not cheap but not bad at all. Your backups can often be a SuperMicro type box where that cache layer can use consumer drives.

                  Surprisingly, I think you'd find many SMBs paying more for less already.

                  DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    And that's an extreme case, you can get nearly those speeds with SATA!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      Its' amazing how dropping to a single server architecture makes so many things so much cheaper and easier. Suddenly what would be insane to try to do with two or three servers is... nearly free.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • DashrenderD
                        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said:

                        Pushing an SSH cache on a restore machine is not cheap but not bad at all. Your backups can often be a SuperMicro type box where that cache layer can use consumer drives.

                        SSH cache?

                        Surprisingly, I think you'd find many SMBs paying more for less already.

                        Yeah, well IPODs are definitely aplenty, doesn't mean it's right 🙂

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          Sorry, SSD cache.

                          DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • DashrenderD
                            Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            @scottalanmiller said:

                            Sorry, SSD cache.

                            I seriously thought there was something else SSH must stand for.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • 1
                            • 2
                            • 3
                            • 4
                            • 5
                            • 6
                            • 6 / 6
                            • First post
                              Last post