Hyper-V High availability? or only VMware
-
@LAH3385 said:
What kind of HDD type is recommended for Starwind VSAN? RAID10 with at least 3TB storage space. SATA7.2K or SAS 10K/15K? I doubt we can afford SSD.
If VMware is on the table, you can afford SSDs no problem. Not that you need them, just considering the one guarantees the budget for the other, if that makes sense.
StarWind does not recommend RAID 10 normally. Normally they would push towards RAID 6 or less.
Adding in @StarWind_Software @KOOLER @original_anvil
-
@scottalanmiller said:
StarWind does not recommend RAID 10 normally. Normally they would push towards RAID 6 or less.
Wait, what? StarWind recommends RAID 6 for the sync'ed underbelly of your VM infrastructure?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
StarWind does not recommend RAID 10 normally. Normally they would push towards RAID 6 or less.
Wait, what? StarWind recommends RAID 6 for the sync'ed underbelly of your VM infrastructure?
Often they recommend RAID 0. I, however, do not.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
StarWind does not recommend RAID 10 normally. Normally they would push towards RAID 6 or less.
Wait, what? StarWind recommends RAID 6 for the sync'ed underbelly of your VM infrastructure?
Often they recommend RAID 0. I, however, do not.
Wow.. I guess that would be the really poor man's option.. but if you are that poor.. why do you have two servers? why not just one that costs less than the total cost of two but more powerful (if needed) than the single? Seems like the wrong way to go about things.
This reminds me of @scottalanmiller all eggs in one basket aren't really worst than splitting them over two baskets post.
-
@LAH3385 to determine the storage needs (drives, RAID, etc.) we would need some good info about the needed storage capacity and IOPS that are needed. It is very possible that normal SATA or SL-SAS drives will do the trick. For file servers and AD, slow SATA is more than enough.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
StarWind does not recommend RAID 10 normally. Normally they would push towards RAID 6 or less.
Wait, what? StarWind recommends RAID 6 for the sync'ed underbelly of your VM infrastructure?
Often they recommend RAID 0. I, however, do not.
Wow.. I guess that would be the really poor man's option.. but if you are that poor.. why do you have two servers? why not just one that costs less than the total cost of two but more powerful (if needed) than the single? Seems like the wrong way to go about things.
Because many people worry solely about compute node failure and nothing else, just like the logic that leads people to spend a fortune on an inverted pyramid while having huge risk from a single, cheap, fragile SAN - they get sidetracked thinking about a single failure mode rather than focusing on overall reliability.
But keep in mind, StarWind with RAID 0 is still overall RAID 01. But I would almost want RAID 6 in there myself to avoid node failover caused by storage whenever possible. Resulting in RAID 61.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But keep in mind, StarWind with RAID 0 is still overall RAID 01. But I would almost want RAID 6 in there myself to avoid node failover caused by storage whenever possible. Resulting in RAID 61.
I was thinking the same thing. I'd really had to loose a node, then loose the other server because of a drive failure that I was unlucky enough to loose during a node failure.
But even that seems really undesirable (RAID 6 that is) because of the performance penalties - I 'feel' like a single server would be better in general in that case with RAID 10 Spinning Rust, or RAID 5 SSD.
-
I wonder if @scottalanmiller would still recommend OBR 10 instead of RAID 6 for use with Starwind?
-
We have 2 main production team: I'll call them A and B for simplicity.
A requires File Server as they only need to gather documents and other stuff. Applications that they need are Chrome, Adobe, Office.
B requires some File Server and DB access (Access, SQL, some other accounting programs). B is a more mission critical. For B, the server cannot goes down during production.. period. B is what really require HACurrently both A and B are on different physical servers but B still has some files on A server. When server B goes down, it cause DB corruption. The fix is easy and only takes 30 minutes to relink files and restore some as needed from back up.
AD that got corrupted back in July cause File Server inaccessible and that was what really dealt the most damage. If File Server is the only Mission Critical then failover DFS should be enough. but my boss wants the OS to be failover-able.
-
The question is why? I'm guessing because he's old school (kinda like me). But he and I both need to join the 21st century.
Using Application Level failover is much better than using hardware fail over whenever possible. Of course it's not always possible, so we have hardware fail over as another thing we can add to the reliability chain.
-
@LAH3385 said:
AD that got corrupted back in July cause File Server inaccessible and that was what really dealt the most damage. If File Server is the only Mission Critical then failover DFS should be enough. but my boss wants the OS to be failover-able.
What caused your AD corruption? Did AD corruption prevent access to the server completely?
-
@Dashrender said:
But even that seems really undesirable (RAID 6 that is) because of the performance penalties - I 'feel' like a single server would be better in general in that case with RAID 10 Spinning Rust, or RAID 5 SSD.
Depends on the workload. Most SMB workloads are perfectly fine on RAID 6. Remember you two arrays here, not just one, so your getting some performance from each, but you do have write overhead of the network.
-
@dafyre said:
I wonder if @scottalanmiller would still recommend OBR 10 instead of RAID 6 for use with Starwind?
All depends on the workload. In this case you would normally gravitate towards OBR6 unless you need the speed of OBR10 rather than looking primarily at reliability.
-
@LAH3385 said:
but my boss wants the OS to be failover-able.
Did you explain to him that the OS failing over could DIRECTLY undermine the ability to meet the business need of keeping the files available? OS failing over is a fallback for when your file server fails to fall over, it's not his goal.
Sounds like he is leading with "proximate" needs rather than "goal" needs.
-
@LAH3385 said:
Currently both A and B are on different physical servers but B still has some files on A server. When server B goes down, it cause DB corruption.
We should address this and fix why the database is corrupting as a good starting point.
-
At this point of the conversation, I will restate. You need to just step back and start over.
Hire a new consultant, get a proper idea of what things will take to get done and move forward then. -
@JaredBusch said in Hyper-V High availability? or only VMware:
At this point of the conversation, I will restate. You need to just step back and start over.
Hire a new consultant, get a proper idea of what things will take to get done and move forward then.I am rethinking what exactly that need to be done. As SAM has mentioned:
@scottalanmiller said:
@LAH3385 said:
but my boss wants the OS to be failover-able.
Did you explain to him that the OS failing over could DIRECTLY undermine the ability to meet the business need of keeping the files available? OS failing over is a fallback for when your file server fails to fall over, it's not his goal.
Sounds like he is leading with "proximate" needs rather than "goal" needs.
Maybe I am too deep and trying to create a system that is not the solution for us.
-
@LAH3385 might be good to start a thread and try to determine what your needs are before going down the path of technology. By the time you were asking this question, you were already in pretty deep assuming certain products, product categories and platform HA. We should start with a business needs analysis, use that to set goals and then use the goals to select technology approaches.
